Kolkata Court September 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.
M. Verghese Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal421,[1963(6)FLR378],(1963)IILLJ569Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. These two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were by consent directed to be heard together because they raise the same points of controversy. There is a minor difference between them but that is not very material and I shall deal with that difference later on. 2. The petitioners are drivers employed under the Durgapur Steel Project under the Hindusthan Steel Limited. The first petitioner in Rule No. 4052 of I960 was appointed on the 1st April, 1957 pursuant to an offer made on the 26th March. His services were terminated on the 20th June, 1959. He did not obtain the Rule until as late as 19th September, 1960. The petitioner in the other Rule, Bimal Chandra Majumdar was appointed on the 21st September, 1957 on an offer made on the llth September 1957. His services were terminated on the 14th April, 1959. He did not obtain this Rule until 17th January, 1S61. Delay has been urged as a ground in both the cases on which it has been contended that th...
N.C. Mukherjee and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Cal165,[1964]51ITR366(Cal)
Bachawat, J.1. In these rules the petitioner firm seeks orders quashing and setting aside all proceedings in certificate cases Nos. 158, I.T.(C) of 1955-56, 159 I.T.(C) of 1955-56, 160 I.T.(C) of 1955-56 and 161 I.T.(C) of 1955-56 in respect of four certificates all dated March 29, 1956, signed by the certificate officer, 24-Parganas and filed in his office under Section 4 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 for recovery of the public demands due to the Union of India from the petitioner firm on account of excess profits tax assessed on the petitioner firm for the chargeable accounting periods ending March 31, 1942, March 31, 1943, March 31, 1944 and March 31, 1946. By his orders dated March 29, 1956 the certificate officer directed the entry of the certificates in Register X and the issue of notices under Section 7 of the Act. Notices under Section 7 dated April 16, 1956 were issued and served on the petitioner but upon objection filed under Section 9 the certificate offic...
Sethani Chhoti Debi Vs. Union of India and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR473(Cal)
BACHAWAT J. - In these rules the petitioner asks for an order under article 227 of the Constitution of India quashing an order of attachment passed in Certificate Case No. 348/I. T. (C)/55-56 by the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas, Alipore. The petitioner was assessed to income-tax and super-tax for the assessment year 1951-52 amounting to Rs. 13,997-8-0. On a requisition made by the Income-tax Officer under section 46 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Certificate Officer signed a certificate dated March 31, 1956, under section 4 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, stating that the demand is due from the petitioner to the Union of India and on the same date directed the entry of the certificate in register X and the issue of a notice under section 7 of the Act. A notice under section 7 dated April 4, 1956, was served upon the petitioner on or about May 1, 1956. The certificate case was adjourned from time to time and on April 4, 1961, the Certificate Officer mad...
Abdul Barik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Cal324
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a petition by Abdul Bank under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order No. 8381-PP/S-692/59 dated the 14th September, 1960, made by the Governor under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (XXXI of 1946) read with Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No, 4/3/56-1 F. I. dated the 19th April, 1958. The order is as follows:'......... the Governor is pleased hereby toorder that Sri Abdul. Batik son of late Talib Hossain a foreigner of Pakistan nationality shall not remain in India after the expiry of 7 days from the date of service of this order on him. By order of the Governor. Sd/- S. K. Ghosh,Dy. Secy, to the Govt. of WestBengal.' 2. The petitioner's case is that he is not a foreigner of Pakistan nationality. He asserts that he is an Indian and of Indian nationality. He says further that he was born in Mymensingh in the year 1923 which is now in Pakistan. The petitioner says that h...
Dhiraj Lal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal442
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution raises the vexed constitutional and legal problem of Inter State trade and commerce. The disputed tax is levied by the State of West Bengal under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 upon the goods of the petitioner which were being sent from Calcutta to Jamshedpur under certain contracts or more accurately called Purchase Orders to the Kaiser Engineers Overseas Corporation who are agents of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. for the express purpose and object of the expansion of the Tata's existing Steel Plant facilities at Jamshedpur, India. The tax is said to be illegal and unconstitutional being violative of the constitutional freedom of inter State commerce.2. The petitioner is one Dhiraj Lal Mehta said to be carrying on business under the name and Style of 'Bengal Hardware Mart' at 69/A, Netaji Kubhas Road, Calcutta. He is a registered dealer both under the Central Sales Tax Act as well as under the...
Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew Vs. Income-tax Officer.Matter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR480(Cal)
The idols of the names of Sri Sri Sridhar Jiew and Sri Sri Radharaman Jiew, represented by their shebait, Pulin Chandra Daw, are the petitioners in this rule. To the said idols were dedicated considerable properties, which are commonly known Shiva Krishna Debuttar. For the assessment year 1952-53, the respondent Income-tax Officer assessed the income arising from the said debuttar estate in the hands of Pulin Chandra Daw, as shebait. The assessment was challenged by the assessee and ultimately the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench 'A', held that the legal owner of the debuttar properties was not Pulin Chandra Daw but the idols themselves and that the status of Pulin Chandra Daw was that of a shebait or manager, having no beneficial interest in the said properties. Pulin Chandra Daw was, therefore, held not liable to taxation as owner of the properties.Thereafter, a notice, said to be under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and addressed to the petitioners-idols, repre...
Hoosen Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR171(Cal)
SINHA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee in this case is a limited Co. - Messrs. Hoosen Kasam Dada (India) Ltd., Calcutta - and the assessment year is 1953-54 corresponding to the accounting year ended on 30th June, 1952. The assessee company is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and has been carrying on business since 1947. Its registered office is in Calcutta, but it had business connections all over India. Its principal business was that of export of gunnies. In the income-tax assessment of the particular year mentioned above, various questions arose, but in this reference we are concerned with only one question and it arises as follow :In the relevant year, the assessee suffered a loss of Rs. 6,39,897 in transactions with regard to the sale and purchase of gunnies. The Income-tax Office disallowed this amount on the ground that this amount was lost on speculation in gunnies and speculation was not the assessees li...
Mahadeo (Prosad) Saraf Vs. S.K. Srivastava and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal152
Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Banerjee J, dated the 7th June, 1962 summarily rejecting an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and refusing to issue a Rule Nisi.2. The appellant carries on business under the name and style of Narayan Timber Works at premises No. 67/23, Strand Road, Calcutta, as the sole proprietor thereof. The business consists, inter alia, in the sale and purchase of various kinds of timber and wood. In October 1961 the appellant entered into a contract with Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. for the purchase of unserviceable dunnage wood. The importation of dunnage wood was et the material time governed by a notification dated the 22nd October, 1960 issued under the provisions of the Sea. Customs Act, 1878. On 3rd October, 1961 the appellant received from the Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. respondent No. 4. a letter offering 15 torts of dunnage wood from its steamer 'S. S. Jalakirti'. The steamer S. S. Jalakirti entered the Calcutta P...
Jamnadas Agarwalla and anr. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund, Commissio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Cal518,[1962(5)FLR336],(1963)ILLJ96Cal
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against several demands, made on the petitioners, under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952. The first demand for payment of Provident Fund Contribution and administrative charges was made on April 30, 1957, and the period covered thereby was mentioned as 'with effect from the 13th February 1959'. (Annexure C). The second demand was made on May 27, 1959, for the period from 'February '59 to April '59' (Annexure C1.). The third demand was made on July 31, 1959, for the period from 'May '59 to June '59 in addition to previous period' (Annexure C3). The fourth demand was made on February 2, 1960, for the period ''July '59 to February '60 in addition to previous period' (Annexure 04). The fifth demand was made on May 13, 1960, for the period from 'February '60 to March '60 in addition to previous period' (Annexure C5). The sixth demand was made on July 6, 1960, for the period from 'April '60 to May '60 in addition to previous period' (An...
Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR350(Cal)
SINHA J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The facts are shortly as follows : The assessee in this case is Messrs. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram, having the status of a Hindu undivided family. It is a dealer for the last 30 or 40 years in scrap iron and hardware. It buys from the local market all kinds of scrap iron as also iron goods from auctions, railways and other companies with the sole purpose of selling the same at a profit. Admittedly, it did not deal in jute. Messrs. Hoare Miller & Co. Ltd. was the owner of a jute press situated a Baranagore known as the Homer Jute Press. In 1941, the press was leased out to one Ram Lal Bajoria for a period of ten months. The terms of the lease expired on the 9th October, 1941, but the lessee did not deliver vacant possession and Messrs. Miller & Co. Ltd. filed an ejectment suit. On or about the 31st October, 1942, while the suit was pending, the assessee agreed with Messrs. Hoare Miller & Co. Ltd. to purchase the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »