Kolkata Court March 1963 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.
Sachindra Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Jnanendra Narayan Singh Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Cal417
Mitter, J. 1. This is an application by a defendant appellant praying for various reliefs including one for setting aside abatement If any, amendment of the cause title and body of the memorandum of appeal etc.2. One Jnanendra Narayan Singh Roy filed a suit in this Court being Suit No. 247 of 1948 against Subodh Chandra Chakravorti and several others and obtained a money decree therein. In execution of the decree he levied attachment on 2-4-1953 to the extent of Rs. 26,000/- in respect of moneys in the hands of the Executive Engineer, North Eastern Railway on the allegation that Subodh Chandra Chakravorti was the sole proprietor of Chakravorti and Company. The appellant Sachindra Chandra Chakravorti preferred a claim against the said attachment in or about June 1953 alleging that under a registered deed of dissolution dated 9-8-52, it was he and not Subodh Chandra Chakravorti who was the owner of the moneys attached. On 21-6-54 Jnanendra Narayan Singh Roy filed a suit in this Court bei...
Ram Kumar Agarwalla and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR82(Cal)
P.B. MUKHARJI J. - In this Income-tax Reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act the following questions have been aske :'1. Whether there was any material on record for the President to give a finding to the effect that the contention of the assessee that it intended to buy the mills was without any basis whatsoever?2. Was the receipt in question a revenue receipt from a venture in the nature of trade and has it been rightly brought to tax?'The facts lie within a small compass though the case had a very chequered history. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on the business as share brokers, share dealers and paper merchants. The assessment year is 1947-48, corresponding to the previous year which is the calender year 1946. Early in 1946, the assessee, Mr. David Mitchell of Messrs. Lovelock & Lewis, chartered accountants, and Mr. Rowan Hodge of Messrs. Orr, Dignam & Co., solicitors, were found as a fact to be negotiating with Messrs. Harseman Brothers, proprietors of Sw...
Jyoti Prokash Mitter Vs. the Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.K. Bose, Chief Just ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Cal483,67CWN662,[1962(4)FLR121]
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. A simple question 'whether a Rule Nisi should issue in the instant case' has assumed intriguing importance. The Rule was refused by our learned brother Banerjee, J. (see : AIR1963Cal178 ), and on appeal, G. K. Mitter and Laik, JJ., differed, the former holding that Banerjee, J. was right in refusing the Rule, the latter holding the contrary (see : AIR1963Cal183 ). This difference led to the present reference, presumably under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, and, apparently, the importance of the matter impressed the learned Chief Justice to constitute eventually a Special Bench -- this Bench of three Judges, -- to hear and determine the reference.2. The constitution of the Special Bench and the reference were made by the following order of the learned Chief Justice :'Let this matter be placed for disposal before aBench consisting of:Mr. Justice P. N. Mookerjee,Mr. Justice Sankar Prasad Mitra andMr. Justice R. N. Dutt.'Following upon a minuted order of the Appeal C...
Kamal Singh Dugar Vs. Corporated Engineers (India) Pr. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Cal464
B.C. Mitra, J.1. In this suit tile plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant Rs. 5,236.62 nP. being the price of goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff's case as laid in the plaint is that on December 3, 1958 he supplied fabricated earth plates to the defendant. The plaintiff made the supply in his firm name, namely. 'The Electric House' in which he was carrying on business. A bill was duly submitted by the plaintiff containing particulars of the goods sold as also the price payable by the defendant. On March 16, 1953 the defendant delivered to the plaintiff a cheque for Rs. 5,236.62 nP. drawn by the defendant upon the Bank of India Ltd. payable to the Electric House. The plaintiff's case is that this cheque was not presented for payment at the request of the defendant till September t, 1959 when the cheque on being presented for payment, was dishonoured.2. The defence is that the contract between the parties was entered into through one S. D. Sharma who acted as agent of the plai...
Golam Rasul Vs. Public Service Commission and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1963
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ174Cal
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner, Golam Rasul, was a driver of a motor vehicle under the Public Service Commission, Went Bengal. On 16 December 1958, the petitioner was charged with misconduct as hereinbelow set out:'Whereas it appears that you, Golam Rasul, driver of car No. WBD 9798 of the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, were guilty of serious misconduct and dishonesty, in that you accompanied by Md Farouk, cleaner of the said oar, went to shed No. 9at 11-A, Free School Street, between 7 and 7-30 a.m. on Saturday. 22 November 1958, and again at about 8-30 a.m. on Tuesday, 25 November 1958. and removed without authority, permission or the knowledge of your superior officers a large number of blank examination answer books valued at nearly Rs. 500 from the inner room of shed No. 9.Now, therefore, you are hereby directed to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of this memorandum why you should not be dismissed from service or other-wise suitably punished under Rule 7 of th...
Aswini Kumar Pan Vs. Sm. Parimal Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal354,67CWN1051
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question, a question which has not arisen and has not been considered by this Court, strictly speaking, in any of the cases, which have been brought to our notice. There are, however, decisions of other High Courts on this particular point but they are conflicting and that gives an added interest to the said point before us.2. The suit was brought, on February 18, 1952, by the present appellant for declaration of his title to the suit-lands and recovery of possession of the same from the defendants, or, in the alternative, for cancellation and setting aside of a certain Kobala (Deed of Sale), obtained from his mother by the defendant No. 1, with the consequential relief of possession. Upon the above reliefs, further relief in the shape of mesne profits was also prayed for. The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit but, on appeal, it was dismissed, primarily, on the ground of limitation and I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›