Kolkata Court February 1963 Judgments
Shyam Sundar Derey and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Cal281,68CWN1028,(1965)IILLJ321Cal
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. C. R. Nos. 237, 238 and 239 of 1961 have been lakon up together as common questions arc involved in these three petitions. The petitioner in No. 337, Shyam Sunder Derey, was the post-man, Sudhangsu Sekhar Bhattacharjee, the petitioner in No. 238, was the Post Master and Rajbahadur Singli the petitioner in No. 239, was the officiating clerk of the Post Office at Chengail. On the complaint of the Durwan of the Ludlow Jute Company Ltd., at Chengail, that these three petitioners had withdrawn Rs. 21,000/- from the Postal Savings Bank Account of the said Durwan by fraudulently obtaining his signature on the withdrawal forms, a criminal ease under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was started against these three persons. Shortly thereafter on 12-9-59, the Inspector of Post Offices placed them under suspension. On 22-9-60, the petitioners in the three cases were discharged as the police failed to submit their report After their discharge on 22-9-60, these three petition...
Tag this Judgment!Kooka Sidhwa and Co., Calcutta Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, W.B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal254,68CWN281,[1964]54ITR54(Cal)
Laik, J.1. This is a consolidated Reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the assesses in respect of three assessment years 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47 where the following question has been referred:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances at-the case the Tribunal was justified In not admitting the appeals filed by the assesses in respect of the revision of its assessments for the assessment year 1944-45, 1945-46 and 1946-47'.In other words, whether the order passed by the Income-tax Officer revising the original assessment as directed--by the Appellate Tribunal would partake the character of procedural law only I.e. whether the appellant had no substantive right to prefer the appeal under Section 30 of the Act2. The facts material for the purpose of the reference are: The applicant-firm Messrs. Kooka Sidhwa and Company, Calcutta, is the Managing Agent of limited concern, viz., the Globe Theatres Ltd., Calcutta. Under the terms of the agreement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishprasad Pannalal and Co. Vs. India Steamship Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Cal510
A.N. Ray, J. 1. The plaintiff instituted this suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,52542-0 and in the alternative an enquiry into damages and decree for the sum found so due. By three bills of lading numbered 31, 32 and 39 all dated August 5, 1957 the defendant company acknowledged shipments by the plaintiff of 360 drums of groundnut oil to be safely and securely carried by the defendant company to the Port of Calcutta. On August 16, 1957 the steam-snip arrived at the Port of Calcutta. The defendant company delivered 348 drums and failed and neglected to deliver the balance quantity of 12 drums. The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 3,525-12-0 being proportionate invoice price of the said 12 drums.'2. The defendant alleged in the written statement that the said drums were carried on terms as will appear from the endorsements on the bills of lading. The endorsements relied on by the defendant are set out in paragraph 3 of the written statement. The defendant denies any breach of contract. The def...
Tag this Judgment!Bachha Tewari and anr. Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, West Midnapore D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC1067(Cal)
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. A three-fold grievance was made in this Rule by Mr. B. K. Panda, learned Advocate for the petitioner. He contended, in the first place, that the petitioner purchased standing timber and the Authorities should not have taxed standing timber under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, because standing timber is not goods but immovable property. It must be stated in fairness to Mr. Panda that he did not ultimately press this point. Mr. Panda contended, in the next place, that the petitioner merely chopped the timber into firewood but chopped firewood was not manufactured goods. Since the petitioner's gross turnover did not exceed rupees ten thousand he was not liable to pay, sales tax on the turnover. This argument is misconceived. Manufacturing process means to bring into being a commercial article for sale in the business in which the dealer is engaged, i.e., article which by itself has a commercial value and which can be the subject-matter of sale for a price in cours...
Tag this Judgment!Roy Chowdhury (T.P.) Vs. Calcutta Dock Labour Board and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1963
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ179Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. Dock labour is regulated by an Act known as the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment; Act, 1948 (IX of 1948). Under Section 4 of the Act,The Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette and subject to the condition of previous publication, make one or more scheme for port or group of ports and may, in like manner and subject to the like condition, add to, amend, vary or revoke any scheme made by it.2. Under powers conferred by Section 4 quoted above, there was a scheme made for the port of Calcutta, in the year 1951, which was known as the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1951. Clauses 4 and 10 of the scheme read as follows:4. Calcutta Dock Labour Board-Establishment of,-(1) The Central Government shall, by notification in the official gazette, constitute a board to be called the 'Calcutta Dock Labour Board' which shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, be responsible for the administration of the scheme.(...
Tag this Judgment!Farbenfebriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft Vs. Joint Controller of Patent ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Cal433,67CWN743
Miiter, J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.2. The matter arises out of a decision of the Controller of Patents under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, holding that the respondent Arlabs Private Limited should be granted the licences they seek. An appeal preferred there from by the patentee Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft to this Court was dismissed. The patentee now desires to go up to the Supreme Court. Various points were canvassed at the bat on the different aspects of Article 133(1) of theConstitution, namely, (a) whether the proceeding was a civil proceeding (b) whether the order was a final order, (c) whether Article 133 was at all applicable to a case which had not been before two Courts including the High Court, (d) whether in hearing the appeal the High Court was acting as a persona designata, and lastly (e) whether the case was a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.3. Before dealing with the applicabil...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chandra Sen Vs. Income-tax Officer, District Iii(2), Calcutta, a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR87(Cal)
In this application under article 226 the petitioner has obtained a rule for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Income-tax (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) dated June 5, 1957, and February 3, 1960, respectively.The case of the petitioner is that he is the karta of a Hindu undivided family, constituted by the heirs of one Manmatha Nath Sen and as such is liable to pay income-tax in respect of the income of the deceased Manmatha Nath to the extent of the estate inherited by the family from him. Manmatha Nath happened to be a partner of an unregistered firm called Messrs. Sen Bros. and Co. carrying on business at 15, College Square. The Income-tax Officer (respondent No. 1) in assessing the income of Manmatha Nath for the assessment years 1950-56 added to his personal income from house property, his 1/3 share of the income from the business of the said firm and charged tax accordingly. Since the business of the firm was in th...
Tag this Judgment!Humayun Properties Ltd. Vs. Ferrazzinis (Private) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Cal473
Sinha, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of Mitter, J., dated 9th March, 1959. The application was for the execution of a consent decree dated 14th December, 1955 made in Suit No. 183 of 1955 (Humayun Properties Ltd. V. Ferrazzinis (Private) Ltd.). The learned Judge has held that there will be 'no order' on the application and that the parties should bear their own costs. The facts are shortly as follows: The plaintiff in the suit, Humayun Properties Ltd., acompany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, is the owner of premises No. 20, Lindsay Street in Calcuttaknown as 'Humayun Court'. A portion of the said premiseswas demised to the defendant, Ferrazzinis Limited, nowferrazzinis (Private) Limited. The said suit No. 133 of1955 was instituted in this Court by the plaintiff againstthe defendant for possession of the said premises, arrearsof rent and mesne profits. An application was taken outIn the suit for final judgment under the provisions ofChapter XIIIA of the rules of...
Tag this Judgment!Liberty Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR153(Cal)
This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The reference seeks the answer of this court to the following questio :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 24,498-12-6 incurred for repairs and renovation of the cinema hall and the sum of Rs. 9,890 incurred for legal expense could be allowed as expenses under any of the provisions of section 10(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act?'The assessee is the lessee of a cinema house belonging to one Jagannath Prosad Roy. Jagannath gave a lease on the 18th February, 1946, of the house along with machinery, furniture and other fixtures to one Mahendra Narayan Roy for a period of five years with an option to renew the lease for another five years. The interest of Mahendra Narayan Roy in the said property was sold on the 12th May, 1950, in auction sale on account of income-tax demands to the partners of the assessee firm along with two other gentlemen, M/s. Agarwalla and Advani. The sale was ...
Tag this Judgment!Rishikesh Mitter Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal277,69CWN287
Bachawat, J.1. These rules are directed against an order of the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore, dated the 5th September 1959, rejecting the references made by the Collector at the instance of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 8 of the West bengal Land Development and Planning Act (Act XXI of 1948) on the ground that these references were incompetent. The references were made by the Collector on the written applications signed on behalf of the petitioners by their respective pleaders. In each case the vakalatnama of the pleader signed by or on behalf of the petitioner concerned was filed before the Collector before the application was made to him. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that his objection to the award be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court. In the instant cases ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »