Kolkata Court April 1961 Judgments
Surajmull Nagarmull and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal578
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. We are unanimous on this Special Bench thatthe Rule' must be discharged.2. Search of a citizen's home and seizure of his books and documents without a warrant from any Court or Magistrate are, on this application, challenged as unconstitutional and illegal. Many sleeping lions, if not passions, are roused and the old forgotten war cries of the 18th Century legal battle of Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 State Tr 1029, came roaring through the corridors of history to face the jaded jurisprudence of the 20th Century to find it unresponsive. Prized freedoms, newly won then, have now after two centuries, become too old to defend themselves.3. This Reference to the Special Bench under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with the Original Side Rules for Special Bench (Chapter V, Rules 2 and 3 of the Original Side Rules) raises (1) the question of constitutional validity of Section 37 (2) of the Income-tax Act and (2) the question of the statutory legality of the ste...
Tag this Judgment!Bangur Brothers, Ltd. and ors. Vs. Government of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ351Cal
Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows.2. There are eleven petitioners in this application who are all companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner 1, Bangur Brothers, Ltd., is the managing agent for five companies, namely, Hastings Mills, Ltd., Fort William jute Company, Ltd., Belsund Sugar Mills, Ltd., Shalimar Rope Works, Ltd., and India Paint, Colour and Varnish Company, Ltd. The petitioner 1 manages the other companies, namely, Amalgamated Development, Ltd., Oceanic Navigation Company, Ltd., Bangur Land Development, Ltd., Vijay Luxmi, Ltd., and West Bengal Properities (Private), Ltd. The respondent 4 is stated to be a department of the petitioner 1. The factories and/or mills of the various companies are situated in different parts of the country. For example, the factories, etc, of Belsund Sugar Mills, Ltd., are in Bihar. The head offices of all the companies are, however, situated at 14, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. In January 1957 a ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Coronation Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Cal528,[1962]32CompCas568(Cal)
ORDERS.P. Mitra, J.1. This is an application tor rectification of the Share Register of the Company.2. The first objection of the company is that the transfer forms which have been used are not in accordance with the provisions of Article 48 of the Articles of Association relating to transfer or transmission of shares. Under Article 48 (b) a form has been set out. Upon comparing the form with the forms used by the petitioner I find there has been substantial, if not verbatim, compliance with the requirement. In any event, Article 48 (b) prescribes that, the transfer may also be recorded 'in any usual or common form which the Board shall have approved'. When the petitioner applied to have her name registered, it was open to the Board to approve of the forms used by the petitioner and her transferors. I do not see why approval could not be given to these forms. This contention of learned Advocate for the company therefore, does not appear to me to be reasonable.3. The next contention is ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Nath Mitra Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal177
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application for stay of a suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The suit sought to be stayed has been instituted by the Respondent against the Union of India and one. Uma Sankar, General Manager of Calcutta Telephones at the material time. The cause of action against the Union of India as pleaded in the plaint is for breach of contract in wrongfully disconnecting the telephone service for a certain period of time, to wit, between November 15,1959 to December 3, 1959. The plaintiff respondent is a solicitor by profession, and by reason of the stoppage of the telephone service claims to have suffered damages assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. The cause of action against the defendant Uma Sankar as pleaded in the plaint is also for damages. It is alleged, that by reason of the wrongful conduct and/Or negligence of Uma Sankar the General Manager, first, in disconnecting the telephone line and, second in not restoring connection till December 3, 1959...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Churan Law Vs. R. Goho, (Official Liquidator)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal23
Bachawat, J. 1. The appellant was a director of the Ballygunge Real Property and Building Society Limited, now in liquidation. On the 18th January 1960 the Official Liquidator applied to the Company Judge for an order under Section 477 of the Indian Companies Act. The application was made ex parte by summons in form No. 109 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959. The summons was accompanied by a statement signed by the Official Liquidator setting forth the materials on which the application was based. On reading that statement the learned Company Judge made an order directing the issue of a summons requiring the appellant to attend for being examined touching the affairs of the company and further directing him to produce certain books and documents specified in the order. The appellant was served with the summons directed Jo be issued under this order. Subsequently the appellant applied to the Company Judge for an order that the order dated the 18th January 1960, be set aside or modified...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Shaw Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal119
S.K. Sen, J.1. This application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the detention of the petitioner Madan Shaw alias Thatera, under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. On 29th Of November, 1960, the District Magistrate of Burdwan issued an order on the petitioner Madan Shaw alias Thatera that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, it was necessary to detain the petitioner. On the same day, 29th November, 1960, another order was issued by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, directing that the petidoner be detained in the Burdwan jail and on the same date, 29-11-60, the grounds of detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 were served upon the petitioner. The Government of West Bengal by an order dated 7th December, 1960 approved of the order made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, on the 29th November, 1960. The papers together ...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Silk Mills Co. Vs. Ismail Golam HossaIn Ariff
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal115,65CWN856
Bachawat, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from a decree passed by his Lordship Mr. Justice H.K. Bose in a Money Suit. The defendant is a limited company. During the years 1928 to 1036 one 'Golam Hossain Cassim Ariff lent and advanced various sums of moneys to the defendant company. The loans carried interest at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent per annum. The defendant company made various part payments. The balance due to Golam Hessain Cassim Ariff on November 30, 1936 was Rs. 2,77,010/10/7 pies. He died testate on January 1, 1937. The present plaintiff is the sole surviving executor to his will. Pending the suit the defendant company has gone in liquidation. Various defences were raised but the only outstanding defence is that of limitation. Apart from limitation it is not now disputed that the moneys claimed in the suit are justly due to the plaintiff.2. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 2,77,010/10/7 pies being the balance due on November 30, 1936 for moneys lent up to that date. By...
Tag this Judgment!United Arab Republic and anr. Vs. Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Cal387
Lahiri, C.J. 1. This appeal raises two important questions about the immunity of a foreign Sovereign State from the civil process of the Courts of our country. The plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,07,346/- as damages for breach of a contract for the supply of tea by the plaintiff. There are two defendants in the suit; the first defendant is the United Arab Republic and the second defendant is the Ministry of Economy, Supplies and Importation Department which is a department ot the first defendant and which according to the plaintiff, entered into the contract on behalf of both. Both the defendants entered appearance in the suit through the Vice Consul in charge of the Consulate General of the United Arab Republic in Calcutta and took out a Master's Summons for an order, inter alia, that the plaint be rejected and/or taken off the file. In the petition in support of the Summons it is stated that the first defendant came into existence as a result of ...
Tag this Judgment!In the Goods of Mahammad Bashir (Deceased)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1964Cal34
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application for revocation of a grant of Letters of Administration to the Estate of Mahammad Bashir deceased. Mahammad Bashir died in March 1960 leaving him surviving his sole widow Md. Nazimunnessa, his only son Md, Riaz -- a boy of four and two daughters by a predeceased wife. Mahammad Bashir was the second son of Haji Din Mohammad who died some years prior to 1940. Haji Din Mohammad had another son Abdul Hakim who died in 1949. The petitioner, Manjoor Abmed, is the only son of Abdul Hakim. The Letters of Administration was granted to the widow by an order of this Court passed on January 20, 1961.2. It is alleged in the petition that Haji Din Mohammad was a very successful businessman who amassed a fortune. Prior to his death the late Haji made over to his two sons the sum of Rs. 12 lacs, 4000 gold mohurs and 1000 tolas of gold ornaments. The sum of Rs. 12 lacs given by the late Haji to his sons was utilised in purchasing various properties and also...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta Vs. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR25(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The two questions asked in the reference are as follows :'(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the claim for double taxation relief was properly made within the meaning of section 49A of the Income-tax Act, read with the Income-tax (Double Taxation Relief) (United Kingdom) Rules, 1948 and(2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the claim for the double taxation relief was made within the period prescribed under the Indian Income-tax Act and the Rules ?'Before answering these two questions, it will be appropriate to set out the relevant facts. The assessee is a non-resident sterling company. Dividend is its only source of income from India. It has also income which accrued or arose outside India from dividends from companies outside India having income accruing or arising in India. Dividends from India were returned in Section ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »