Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal625,66CWN774
S.P. Mitra, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant No. 1 namely, the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited at all material times carried on business, inter alia, of life insurance, at No. 4, Chittaranjan Avenue in Calcutta. By the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance No. 1 of 1956 the entire management and administration of the affairs and business of the life department of the defendant No. 1 had vested in and come under the direct control of the Union of India with effect from the 19th January, 1956.2. On the 22nd November, 1952 a local agent of the defendant No. 1 approached the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 Shantilal Chhotalal Patel for having insurance on his life and on the persuasion of the agent Shantilal agreed to have his life insured with the defendant No. 1 for the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The local agent asked Shantilal to put his signature on the proposal form whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal26
Debabrata Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is brought from a decision of Sinha, J.' discharging a Rule for Certiorari and Mandamus in respect of certain proceedings before the Assistant Collector of Customs Appraisement, resulting in an order dated the 15th December, 1959 whereby a consignment of Camphor B. P. belonging to the appellant was confiscated under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act.2. The appellant is an importer of drugs and medicines carrying on business at 5 Pollock Street. He obtained a licence dated the 23rd February, 1959 authorising importation of articles described in the Import Trade Control Schedule, Part IV, bearing serial Nos. 87 and 109. The two serial numbers referred respectively to 'drugs and medicines containing spirit' and 'drugs and medicines of all sorts not otherwise specified in the schedule.' The schedule has to be read along with Appendix XIX, List I of which mentions a number of drugs and medicines. The appellant's licence permitted him to import the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal3,1963CriLJ46
Sen, J.1. The five petitioners Basan Bhowmick and four others were convicted by a Magistrate, First Class, Chandernagore under Sections 147 and 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. In an appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly set aside the conviction of the petitioners in respect of the charge under Sections 323 and 324 I. P. C., but he maintained the conviction under Sec. 147 I. P. C. maintaining the sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment passed by the teamed magistrate on petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and reducing the sentence passed by the learned magistrate on the petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 to rigorous imprisonment for one month each. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:2. The complainant Bishnupada Maity and one Krishna Pada Maity who was an accused before the learned magistrate but was acquitted by him, are cousins leaving in separate but adjoining houses. The complainant Bishnupada has a tank and the tank is also used by Krishnapada and his family. Krishnapada a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal198
Sen, J. 1. These two appeals are by the defendants Steuart and Company Limited against two decrees for ejectment passed by Sri J.N. Mallick, Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Alipore. The tenancy which is the subject-matter of first appeal No. 55 of 1956 (Title Suit No. 31 of 1953} is 38/1, Panditiya Road, Ballygunge corresponding to part of old premises Nos. 37 and 38 Panditiya Road; the rate of rent in respect of this tenancy is Rs. 500/- per month. The subject-matter of first appeal No. 268 of 1956 (Title Suit No. 30 of 1953) is 37 and 38 Panditiya Road, Ballygunge corresponding to old premises No. 37/1 and portion of 38 Panditiya Road; the rent of this tenancy is Rs. 200/- per month. 2. The history of the tenancies is briefly as follows: On 22nd December, 1913, M. Mackertich and Frank Ernest Bushby let out the subject-matter of Title Suit No. 31 or 1953, i.e., portion of premises Nos. 37 and 38 Panditiya Road (new No. 38/1) covering an area of approximately 7 bighas 9 cottahs 5 chat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal127,66CWN549
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J. 1. Is Sections 6 of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 herein-after referred to as the Act) dealing with determination of the value of taxable gifts and that part of Section 29 of the Act, which authorises recovery of Gift from the donee, where, in the opinion of the Gift Tax Officer, the tax cannot be recovered from the donor, ultra vires the Constitution? That is the main question which calls for determination in this Rule. 2. 'Gift' is defined in Section 2(xii) of the Act in the following language : -- 'Gift means the transfer by one person to another of any existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration in money or moneys worth, and includes the transfer of any property deemed to be a gift under Section 4.'Section 4 of the Act includes certain transfers within thedefinition of 'Gift' under the Act and reads as follows : Section 4. For the purposes of this Act,-- (a) 'Where property is transferred otherwise that for adequate consideratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal468,66CWN651
Bachawat, J.1. This reference and the connected references raise the question whether Muslim Wakf land held partly for the purpose of providing allowances to the wakf's family, children or descendants is land held exclusively for religious and/or charitable purposes so as to at tract the protection of Section 6(1)(i) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. This reference arises out of a petition by the mutwalli Penda Mohmmed wakf estate under Article 226 of the Constitution asking for an order directing the respondents to recall the notices issued under Section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 requiring the petitioner to give up possession of the khas wakf lands in the District of Jalpaiguri and to forbear from giving effect to the notices and the orders and decisions relating thereto. The petitioner has obtained a rule calling upon the State of West Bengal and the other respondents to show cause why the aforesaid order should not be made. The wakf has t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal563,66CWN796
Bachawat, J.1. This reference raises the question, whether the land lord is required to serve notices, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, on a sub-tenant who has become a direct, tenant by an order under Section 16(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 during; the pendency of a suit for ejectment against, him and the former tenant and whether the landlord is entitled to maintain the suit in the absence of such notices. Opposite Party No. 2, Labh Singh was a monthly tenant of suite No. 2 at 7 Clyde Row under opposite party No. 1, Mohon Kumar Mukherjee. Petitioner V.R. Verma, was a monthly, sub-tenant of the aforesaid suite No. 2 under Labh Singh. M.K. Mukherjee alleges that, on or about March 21, 1956, he served on Labh Singh one month's notice to quit the premises expiring with the month of the tenancy. On or about, April 29, 1956 V.R. Verma, gave, notice of the sub-letting to M.K. Mukherjee unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1962]45ITR528(Cal)
Is section 6 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dealing with determination of the value of taxable gifts and that part of section 29 of the Act, which authorises recovery of gift-tax from the donee, where, in the opinion of the Gift-tax Officer, the tax cannot be recovered from the donor, ultra vires the Constitution That is the main question which calls for determination in this rule.'Gift' is defined in section 2(xii) of the Act in the following language :'gift means the transfer by one person to another of any existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration in money or moneys worth, and includes the transfer of any property deemed to be a gift under section 4.'Section 4 of the Act includes certain transfers within the definition of 'Gift' under the Act and reads as follows :'Section 4. For the purposes of this Act, -(a) Where property is transferred otherwise than for adequate consideration, the amount by which the market...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1963]48ITR922(Cal)
G. K. MITTER J. - The only question in this reference is whether the assessee, an association of persons, was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessment year is 1950-51, the relevant accounting year ending on April 30, 1950. Up to the year 1935 one Pannalal Kothari was the karta of a Hindu undivided family carrying on a joint family business under the name and style of Karnidan Rawatmull. In 1935 a partition suit was filed in the original jurisdiction of this court wherein a decree was passed by consent on January 14, 1936. By this decree Meghraj and Kissen Gopal Kothari, the adult sons of Pannalal, were declared entitled to an undivided 1/8th share each in the properties and business of the joint family. A similar declaration was made in favour of Chunilal, Heeralal and Kaniyalal Kothari, minor defendants and brothers of the plaintiffs. The father, Pannalal Kothari, was held entitled to an undivided 3/8th share in the properties mentioned in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1963]49ITR773(Cal)
G. K. MITTER J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the assessee for determination of the question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,25,000 was assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 7(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act read with Explanation 2 thereof as it stood at the material time ?'The facts of the case given in the statement of case and the order of the Tribunal are scanty. The Tribunal is, however, not to blame in any respect for the paucity of facts. The fault, if any, lies with the assessee who, in my opinion, might, without difficulty, have put more material before the income-tax authorities. The assessee came out to India as an assistant of a firm of tea brokers by the name of W. S. Cresswell & Co. in the year 1937. The firm had three partners by the name of N. D. Gye, W. N. Batty and N. F. F. Massy, the shareholdings being 8 as. 6 p., 7 as. and 6 p. respectively. The firm ...
Tag this Judgment!