Kolkata Court March 1964 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1964
Reported in: [1966]62ITR476(Cal)
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, J. - This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The assessment year out of which the reference arose was the year 1956-57 and the relevant accounting year was the calendar year ended on the 31st December, 1955. The total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 6,14,525. In computing the tax on the total income in accordance with the Finance Act, 1956, the Income-tax Officer calculated the reduction in rebate in the following manner :Total dividend and bonus taken during the year :Rs. Rs.(The bonus declared is also to be included in the dividend as it is not bonus declared with a view to increasing the capital) ....5,49,0006 per cent. of the ordinary share capital ....1,83,000 ..3,66,0004 per cent of ordinary share capital.1,22,000@ 2As.15,250 2,44,000@ 3As.45,750 Total..61,000The Income-tax Officer based his calculation on the paid-up share capital of Rs. 30,50,000. According to the Finance Act, 1956, the expression 'paid-up capital' means ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Sumitra Debi Jalan Vs. Satya Narayan Prahladka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal355
U.C. Law, J.1. Sm. Sumitra Debi Jalan (the plaintiff) is the daughter of a Radha Kissen Kanoria who is the Managing Director of Kanoria and Company, Ltd. Her case is that she purchased and took delivery of 5,100 ordinary shares of the Rohtas Industries, Ltd., through her father. The share-scrips in respect of these shares together with the relevant blank transfer-deeds duly signed and endorsed by the registered holders were kept in the office of Kanoria and Company, Ltd. In her plaint she admits that she had not registered herself as the owner of these shares in the books of the Company, i.e., Rohtas Industries, Ltd.2. It is stated that the defendant No. 1 was at the material time an employee of Messrs. North Bihar Sugar Mills, Ltd., of which Kanoria and Company, Ltd., was the managing agents. On or about the 3rd week of May, 1954, the said share-scrips together with some other shares were found to be missing from the office of Kanoria and Company, Ltd., when the defendant No. 1 was on...
Tag this Judgment!Chayarani Mukherjee Vs. Assistant Secretary to the Government of W. Be ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal428,68CWN826
Bachawat, J. 1. The appellant is the owner of the land and building at No. 1/6 Princes Golam Mohammad Road, Calcutta. One D. C. Goswami was a tenant of the entire ground floor of the building. The appellant obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant, and started proceedings for execution of the decree. The connected misc. case was disposed of on July 23, 1960 in terms of a compromise by which the tenant agreed to vacate the premises on the expiry of October, 1060. On October 31 the executing Court rejected an application by the tenant for further time till November 3, and issued a writ for delivery of possession of the premises. Before this writ could be executed, the State Government passed an order on November 2, under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (W. B. Act V of 1947) requisitioning the premises and directing the 1st Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta to take possession of it. The order stated that 'in the opi...
Tag this Judgment!Air Carrying Corporation Vs. Shibendra Nath Bhattacharya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal396
D. Basu, J.1. This second appeal is directed against a decree of the learned Distant Judge of Darjeeling by which he affirmed the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge awarding Rs. 1170/- as damages on account of the loss of a consignment of a tea booked by the plaintiff-respondent for carriage by the defendant-appellant, the Air Carrying Corporation, from Darjeeling to Calcutta.2. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant Corporation failed to deliver the goods at their destination, on account of its negligence. The defence was that the loss was due to an act of God, or the accidental destruction of the air-craft by which the goods were being transported. It is the concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the loss of the plaintiff's goods has been occasioned by the negligence of the defendant Corporation and not an act of God, and the learned Advocate for the defendant-appellant has confined his argument to a question of law, namely, that even assuming that the loss of the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pratima Routh Vs. Hriday Ranjan Routh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal474,68CWN1156
Laik, J. 1. In this painful case, the complaining spouse was the wife. She raised this action under the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Act IV of 1869) hereinafter called the Act concluding for declarator that the husband was, at the time when the pretended marriage between him and the pursuer was entered into and still is impotent, and unable to consummate marriage; that the pretended marriage was from the beginning, is now and in all time corning, shall be null i.e., of no avail, force, strength and effect.2. The charge of impotency, particularly physical, is nevertheless a grave and wounding imputation viz., that the respondent is lacking at least quoad hanc, in the power of reproducing his species, a power which is commonly and rightly considered to be the most characteristic quality of manhood. The observations of Dr. Lushingtoh in D. v. A., (1845) 1 Rob Eccle 279 (298) as to the two principal ends of matrimony being 'a lawful indulgence of passio...
Tag this Judgment!Mandanlal Jajodia Vs. Income-tax Officer, Dist. Ii(i), Calcutta, and A ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR693(Cal)
This application and four other applications namely Matters Nos. 190 of 1962, 191 of 1962, 192 of 1962, and 193 of 1962, involve the same facts and the same points of law. They have been heard simultaneously and will be disposed of by this judgment. The facts are briefly as follow :There is a partnership firm carried on under the same and style of 'Madanlal Sohanlal' at No. 207, Chittaranjan Avenue, in the town of Calcutta, the partners whereof are Madanlal Jajodia, Sohanlal Jajodia, Sampatlal Jajodia and Pannalal Jajodia. Each one of them has made a separate application and that is why these five applications have come into existence. In or about April, 1947, an Act called the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act of 1947, being Act 30 of 1974, commonly known as the Income-tax Investigation Commission Act, was promulgated for the purpose of making suitable provisions to investigate and ascertain the actual incidence of taxation on income disclosed or undisclosed for a peri...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Nath Pathak and anr. Vs. Kitu Rajwar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal436,1964CriLJ405,68CWN710
ORDERR.N. Dutt, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against an appellate order of acquittal setting aside an order of conviction and sentence under Ss. 143,144 and 144/ 114 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case was as follows : The petitioners are the owners of c. s. plot No. 1130 of Mouza Birgiri. This plot is known as Dakshinabaid land. The petitioners are also owners of some other land known as Bansihahal land. The petitioners executed usufractuary mortgage of the Dakshinabaid land in favour of Hurar Majhi and of the Bansibahal land in favour of Banku Rajwar on June 27, 1945. The petitioners paid back the dues on the mortgages on April 11, 1959 and took back possession of the lands. The petitioners then ploughed the lands. Transplantation was completed on Bansibahal land. Transplantation was also done in a portion of Dakshinabaid land. Thereafter Brahmananda Pathak the Opposite Party in Revision Case No. 1139 raised objections. The petitioners thereupon filed a ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraya Properties Private Ltd. Vs. Bimalendu Nath Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal408
Chatterjee, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta after a notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and also alter a notice of suit under Section 13 (6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on the ground that the tenant was not entitled to any protection under Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act of 1956 as the tenant had done an act contrary to the provisions of Clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882.2. The act contrary to the provisions of Clause (p) is the building of a kitchen on the roof of the house with 3' wall of brick and mortar together with a roof of corrugated iron sheets. When the appeal came up for hearing before another Division Bench of this Court, the matter was referred to a Special Bench under proviso (ii), Rule I, Chapter II of the Appellate Side Rules. The relevant portion of the two of the points referred to were as follows:--(i) 'W...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Dhar (Private) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal424,68CWN927
Bose, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of A.N. Ray, J. dismissing an application for setting aside an award. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and carries on inter alia the business of building and construction at 6 Hasting Street, Calcutta. The appellant entered into a contract in writing, dated the 30th December, 1954 with the President of India represented by the Acting Chief Engineer, Eastern Command, for construction of a Canteen-cum-Rest Room for the Gun and Shell Factory at Cossipore for a lump sum of Rs. 2,11,827 in accordance with the terms, conditions and specifications set out in the documents constituting the contractThe work to he done under the contract consisted of dismantling or demolishing the existing structure and construction of Canteen-cum-Rest Room building complete with sanitary fittings, fixtures, etc. The time for completion of the entire work was twelve months from the date of handing over of the site and the co...
Tag this Judgment!Saral Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Madhusudan Auddy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal556
U.C. Law, J.1. This is a suit for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of the demarcated eastern portion of premises No. 92 Narkeldanga Main Road measuring about 1 Bigha 10 Cottas 14 Chittaks and 24 Sq. Ft. for the price of Rs. 45,000/-. This suit was originally filed by the plaintiff against Kashinath Auddy, the vendor, but he having since died, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have been substituted in his place. The agreement of which specific performance is asked for is dated April 12, 1954 entered into between the plaintiff and Kashinath Auddy and inter alia, provides as follows:(a) The purchase shall be subject to the approval of the vendor's title to the said property by the purchaser's solicitor Mr. D. C. Dutt.(b) The vendor would deliver or cause to be delivered to the purchaser's solicitor all the title deeds in any way relating to the said property within one month from the date hereof for investigation of title.(c) The vendor would make out at his own cost a good t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »