Kolkata Court June 1963 Judgments
Syamapada Banerjee Vs. Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Burdwa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal190
D. Basu, J.1. The point for determination-in this application under Article 226 is solely one of statutory interpretation, namely, that of Section 86 of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (1940?).2. The petitioner is an ex-Secretary of the Guskara Union Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society (Respondent 3) which is a society governed by the above-mentioned Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bengal Act'). A 'dispute' under Section 86 of the Bengal Act, being Dispute Suit No. 2111-B of 1960-61 has been instituted. Before the Asst. Registrar (Respondent No. 1) by the Society (Respondent 3), claiming to recover money alleged to have been defalcated by the Petitioner while acting as the Secretary of the Society jointly with another person, ex-Manager of the Society, (vide Ann. C) and the Asst. Registrar has issued an order of attachment before judgment, dated 19-7-61, under Section 125 of the Bengal Act (Ann. A). The petitioner has challenged the order of attachment as without ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J. Thomas and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR312(Cal)
SEN J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter described as the Act.The facts, as appearing in the statement of the case, are stated below :The assessee, J. Thomas & Company Limited, Calcutta, is a private limited company doing business as tea and shellac brokers. Mr. R. A. S. Thomas belonging to the family of the founders joined the business in 1929 as an assistant. In terms of an agreement between the firm and Mr. Thomas, he appointed a co-managing director for a period of two years with effect from April 1,1949. With effect from April 1, 1951, the agreement was renewed for a period of another three years expiring on March 31, 1954. In terms of the agreement the salary was Rs. 40,000 per annum plus a commission of 5 per cent. on the net profit. He was also the holder of 325 ordinary shares of the company. On this qualification he was given a share of the profits in the firm of Messrs. Thomas Cumberlege & Inskipp carrying on business i...
Tag this Judgment!Shaw Bros. and Co. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC878(Cal)
B.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner-firm is a dealer within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. According to the petitioner-firm, the business carried on by the firm consists of: (1) running a saw-mill for sawing of wood supplied by the customers on remuneration, (2) sale of sized planks made from logs and damaged timber purchased for that purpose, and (3) manufacture of furniture. The petitioner-firm did not get itself registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. The Commercial Tax Officer, Alipore Charge, caused production of the books of account of the petitioner-firm and inspected them sometime in May, 1959. Thereafter, being of the opinion that the petitioner-firm was assessable to sales tax he started proceedings for assessment against the petitioner-firm. Admittedly, the petitioner-firm did not co-operate in the assessment, did not produce its account books before the Commercial Tax Officer and ultimately suffered a best judgment assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Majoo and anr. Vs. Administrator General of Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ449
H.K. Bose, C.J.1. This is an application for committal of the respondents Soil Pestonji Majoo in his capacity as sole proprietor of Byron and Co. and in his capacity as executor to the Estate of P. S. Majoo deceased and also in his capacity as partner of a firm of Beverage and Merchandise Co. and onei Sri Homi Pestonji Majoo alleged to be a partner of the said firm of Beverage and Merchandise Company for contempt of Court. A Rule was issued by this Court upon the said two respondents to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of this Court constituting-the following deeds, namely, the said respondent Soli Pestonji Majoo also known as S. P. Majoo in his status an capacity as the executor to the estate of P. S. Majoo- deceased and/or sole proprietor of Byron and Company and/or to carry on the business in partnership in the firm name and style of Beverage and Merchandise Company and/or In one of sued status or capacity getting merged' in another or others deliberately and...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Godhwani and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Cal79
ORDERAmaresh Roy, J.1. This Rule was issued by my learned brother Niyogi, J. on November 5, 1962, upon an application for revision made in this Court on behalf of two accused persons V.K. Godhwani and Bahadur Singh who along with another person named Sankdhari have been complained against by Shri S.N. Banerjee, Assistant Collector of Customs and Superintendent, Preventive Service as having committed alleged offences under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Prosecution allegations are that on April 24, 1962, the said Sankdhari arrived at Dum Dum Air Port from Singapore on a return-journey air-ticket with baggages consisting of two handbags and two suit-cases and one camera. On opening two handbags and one suit-case, it was found that those contained a quantity of doubtful consumer goods including a particular type of cigarette cases, On examination of the leather suit-case, it was found to contain card-board boxes ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalawati Debi Haralalka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal76,67CWN794,[1964]53ITR314(Cal)
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J. 1. Section 297 of the Income-tax Act 1961, which repeals the Income-tax Act 1922 with certain savings, poses a problem, which need be worked out in this Rule.2. It is necessary for me, at the outset, to set out the circumstances in which he problem arises in this Rule. The petitioner is an assessee to income-tax. In the month of January, 1961, the petitioner filed returns of her income for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1960-61. The respondent Income-tax Officer found that the principal sources of income of the petitioner comprised of interest on certain investments and profit from speculations in shares and silver as also from other miscellaneous sources. On the above sources of income, the respondent Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner on income computed at:(a)Rs. 12,150/-for the assessment year 1952-53(b)Rs. 5,045/-for the assessment year 1953-54(c)Rs. 6,760/-for the assessment year 1 954-55(d)Rs. 5,760/-for the assessment year 1955-56(e)Rs. 5,350/-for...
Tag this Judgment!Nanilal Samanta Vs. RabIn Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal64,1964CriLJ186
Amaresh Roy, J.1. This appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate of Alipore on November 21, 1961, was preferred in this Court on January 16, 1961, by the complainant Nanilal Samanta upon obtaining special leave under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That leave was granted on February 13, 1962 and by the same order the appeal was admitted on preliminary hearing. Notice of the appeal was served on the accused Respondent on March 4, 1962 and appearance was entered on behalf of Respondent No. 1 on March 13, 1962, by filing a Vakalatnama through Mrs. Archana Sen Gupta Advocate.2. When the 'appeal was remaining pending in this Court on April 1, 1963, an application on behalf of one Premada Samanta (widow, of Nanilal Samanta) was filed stating therein that the complainant appellant Nanilal Samanta died on March 18, 1962 and praying 'To allow your petitioner to prosecute the appeal after substituting her name in place of deceased appellant and after serving t...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Handicrafts (Private) Ltd. Vs. Standard Brands Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Cal489
ORDERA.N. Ray, J.1. This is an application for settingaside Award No. 526 of 1962 dated October 31,1962 made by the Bengal Chamber of Commercein case No. 295 of 1962 and for an order that theAward be declared null and void. The petitionerentered into a contract with the respondent on orabout January 30, 1962. A true copy of thecontract is annexed to the affidavit affirmed bySaligram Jhajharia on June 10, 1963. There arevarious grounds in the petition for setting asidethe Award. One of the grounds was that thecontract is illegal. The petitioner's contention isthat the alleged contract is a Forward Contractand a transferable specific delivery contract withinthe meaning of Forward Contract Regulation Act1952 and neither the petitioner was a member ofEast India Jute and Hessian and Gunny Brokers norat any material time member of the East IndiaJute and Hessian Exchange Ltd.2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent conceded that the contract was a transferable Specific Delivery Contra...
Tag this Judgment!Siddheswar Paul Vs. Prakash Chandra Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Cal105,68CWN30
Bose, C.J.1. This reference to the Special Division Bench arises out of a Civil Revision case relating to proceedings under Sub-sections ( ) and (3) of Section 17 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The opposite party landlord instituted a suit against the petitioner tenant on 14th September, 1960, for recovery of possession of premises No. 26/1/IC, Rupnarayan Nandan Lane, in P. S. Bhowanipore Dist. 24-Parganas, on the ground in Clause (k) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Writ of Summons in the suit was served upon the tenant on 3oth October, 1960, and the tenant entered appearance in the suit on 4th November, 1960. The tenant deposited with the Rent Controller the rent for the months of November and December, 1960, on 14th December, 1960, and nth January, 1961, respectively. On 17th January, 1961, the tenant filed his written statement. On 27th January, 1961, the landlord filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the Wes...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. Iswar Baldev Jiu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Cal647
P.C. Mallick, J.1. This is a suit challenging alienation of certain debutter properties. The debutter was created by two deeds executed by Raja Pitambar Mitra and Rani Nandarani on January 18, 1806 and May 17, 1824, respectively.2. The properties created debutter by such deeds are very valuable properties consisting of a large number of lands and premises in and around Calcutta. The alienation in the instant case is by way of long leases granted by three persons constituting the committee of management under a scheme framed by this Court in an administration suit being Suit No. 1528 of 1926. The decree framing the scheme will have to be considered later in detail. The preliminary decree was passed in the said suit on March 30, 1934 and the final decree was passed on January 28, 1939 confirming the report of the Official Referee dated March 7, 1938.3. On December 4, 1950 a second suit for administration of the same debutter estate was instituted in this Court being Suit No. 4575 of 1950...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »