Kolkata Court January 1962 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR847(Cal)
G.K. MITTER J. - The questions referred to this court by the Tribunal arise out of the termination of the agency business carried on by the assessee of explosives manufactured by a Scottish company, the Imperial Chemical Industries (Export) Limited. In the eightys of the last century Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., a firm, became the agents of the Scottish Company for the sale of their explosives of various kinds in India. The original agreement in writing is not before us but the parties have proceeded on the basis that there was such an agreement. The business of the firm was taken over in the year 1935 by the assessee company along with the above-mentioned agency as well as other agencies of various manufacturers and producers. In the year 1945 the Scottish Company appears to have informed the assessee that its agencies in India and Ceylon were going to be taken over by the Imperial Chemicals Industries (India) Limited within two or three following years. In fact the agency came to an e...
Bidhu Bhusan Sarcar (Deceased) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1962
Reported in: [1966]59ITR531(Cal)
RAY J. - Bidhu Bhusan Sarcar, since deceased, and hereinafter referred to as the assessee, used to be assessed in the District of 24-Parganas. On December 22, 1947, the assessee filed a voluntary return before the Income-tax Officer, District 24-Parganas, for the assessment year 1947-48 declaring a net loss of Rs. 330. No notice under section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act was issued to the assessee though a general notice had been issued. Subsequently, on account of the change in the assessees field of business, the territorial jurisdiction of the assessee fell within the office of the Income-tax Officer, District I (Calcutta). The file of the assessee was transferred to the Income-tax Officer, District I(2), where it came within the jurisdiction of the 8th Additional Income-tax Officer.On or about January 16, 1949, the 8th Additional Income-tax Officer, District I(2), took action under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, presumably because he considered that the voluntary return de...
Sk. AlimuddIn and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Cal251
P.B. Mukharji. J.1. This is a Jury Reference by the Assistant Sessions Judge of 24 Parganas. There were five accused (1) Sk. Alimuddin, (2) Sk. Rustam, (3) Abdul Rashid, (4) Pato Bibi and (5) (sic) Bibi. The charge a against each was under Section 360 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against (1) Alimuddin and (2) Rustom. They returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty against the other three (1) Abdul Rashid (2) Pato Bibi and (3) Goljan Bibi.2. The learned Judge disagreed with some of these verdicts. According to the Judge's opinion both Alimuddin and Pato Bibi were guilty under Section 366 and accused Abdul Rashid and Sk. Rustom under Section 366/120B of the Indian Penal Code wine Goljan Bibi was not guilty under any of these sections.3. In the letter of reference he begins by saying that 'I am unable to agree with the unanimous verdict of the jury in so far as two of the accused persons are concerned and consider it nec...
Swedish East Asia Company Ltd. Vs. B.P. Herman and Mohatta (India) Pri ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Cal601,66CWN538
Debabrata Mmookerjee, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order refusing stay of a suit pending institution of another in a foreign court and the obtaining of a decision in that Court.2. The appellant, a firm incorporated in Sweden, carrying on business under the name and style of Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd., entered into a contract of affreightment with a Swedish citizen of the name of A. B. Cottram, whereby it undertook to carry 1034 bundles of M. S. Fiats shipped by A. B. Cottram on the defendant's vessel S. S. 'Kyoto', then at the Swedish port of Gothenburgh. The cargo was to be carried to Calcutta and delivered to the order of the shipper subject to certain terms and conditions imposed in a bill of lading dated April 28, 1956, issued by the petitioner Company to Cottram, the shipper. The vessel reached the port of Calcutta on July 4, 1956 and the plaintiff Company obtained delivery of the consignment less 14 bundles which were said not to have been carried or delivered. Ther...
Rajdeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1962
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ618Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. A number of industrial disputes between River Stream Navigation Co., Ltd., and India General Navigation and Railway Co., Ltd. (respondent 3) and their workmen represented by (i) Paschim Banga Mazdoor Congress (respondent 4) and 00 Inland Steam Navigation Workers Union (respondent 5) were referred by respondent 1, State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to the fourth industrial tribunal for adjudication. The order of reference bears the date 23 November 1960.2. The respondent 6, Joint Steamer Companies Employees' Union, claims to be a trade union of a section of the non-clerical staff of respondent 3 companies, numbering about 287. On 16 January 1961, workmen numbering 171 (including the two petitioners), who are members of the respondent 6 union, filed an application before the fourth industrial tribunal praying that they be allowed to file written statement and participate in the adjudication represented by their...
Jyoti Prokash Mitter Vs. H.K. Bose, Chief Justice of the High Court, C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal178,66CWN211
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed an Additional Judge of this Court on February 11, 1949. He was made permanent on January 23, 1950.2. Under Section 220 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and its corresponding article in the Constitution, Article 217 the petitioner was to bold office until he attained the age of 60 years.3. According to the petitioner he was born on December 27, 1904 and the age that he gave out, at the time of his appointment as a Judge, was based on the aforementioned date. The petitioner, therefore, takes the stand that he is not required to demit his office earlier than December 27, 1964.4. In April 1959, after the petitioner had been in office for upwards ten years, the Home Minister, Government of India, tried to reopen the question of the petitioner's age, on the ground that there was a disconformity between the petitioner's age as declared and his Matriculation age, as appearing in the Bihar and Orissa Gazette. I need not concern myself, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›