Kolkata Court June 1964 Judgments
Surjit Singh Atwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal191
P.C. Mallick, J.1. This is a contractor's suit for recovery of the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with lute-rest. There is a prayer for accounts if necessary. It is alleged in the plaint that the contractor was employed by the C. P. W. D., for construction of a hard-runway, taxi tracks and three dispersal roads. As is usual in the case of Government contracts there was an invitation to tender pursuant to which the plaintiff submitted a tender. This tender of the plaintiff was not accepted. It is the plaintiffs case that subsequently the plaintiff was urged to take up the contract on terms and conditions contained in two letters passed between the parties in January 1943. Copies of these letters are annexed to , the plaint. The formal contract was signed by the parties much later in February, 1944. This formal contractwas introduced in the plaint by an amendment effected in December, 1955. The case made in paragraph 1 of the amended plaint is that the formal contract in the instant case was subjec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parbutty Churn Law.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1964
Reported in: [1965]57ITR609(Cal)
MASUD J. - In this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922, the following question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal :'Whether, on the facts of the case, the bona fide annual value and the taxable income as computed by the Tribunal in respect of the property at No. 8, India Exchange Place, for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1953-54 and 1956-57 are in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The facts of the case may be stated as follows :The house property at No. 8, India Exchange Place, Calcutta, a fivestoried building belongs to the assessee, Parbutty Churn Law and his co-shares. The entire building is occupied by tenants, the ground floor being in the possession of M/s. Kothari & Sons, and the remaining four floors having been let out to M/s. Birla Brothers Ltd. The rent of the ground floor is Rs. 36,000 per annum and the rent of the remaining floors payable by M/s. Birla Brothers Ltd., is Rs. 81,000. The ten...
Tag this Judgment!Moore Avenue Properties Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1964
Reported in: [1966]59ITR466(Cal)
S. P. MITRA J. - The assessee is a private limited company owning properties. The assessment years are 1955-56 and 1956-57. The relevant accounting periods are the years ending January 31, 1955, and January 31, 1956, respectively.For the assessment year 1955-56, the assessees total income was determined at Rs. 16,697. The tax payable thereon amounted to Rs. 7,253. There was a distributable surplus of Rs. 9,444. The assessee did not declare any dividend within the 12 months immediately following the expiry of the previous year but a dividend of Rs. 6,959 was declared on October 15, 1957.For the assessment year 1956-57, the total income was Rs. 17,000. The tax thereon was Rs. 7,384. The distributable surplus was Rs. 9,616. Here again no dividend was declared within twelve months immediately following the expiry of the previous year and a dividend of Rs. 6,959 was declared on October 15, 1957.The Income-tax Officer invoked the provisions of section 23A(1) and levied an extra super-tax und...
Tag this Judgment!Harbanslal Malhotra and Sons, (Private) Ltd. Vs. the Income-tax Office ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal226
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows; The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner carries on the business of manufacturing razor blades. This application is concerned with a notice served upon the petitioner dated 22nd March, 1963 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, purporting to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the year 1958-59. A copy of the said notice is annexure 'D' to the petition. It is stated in the notice that the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that the income of the petitioner chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1958-59 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the said Act. It was therefore, proposed to re-assess the income of the petitioner in the said assessment year. With regard to the assessment and re-assessment, only one point has been canvassed before me and it will? be necessary to state certain facts to understand the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Narsinghdas Bagree Vs. Income-tax Officer, B-ward, Dist. I(1), Calcutt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1964
Reported in: [1966]61ITR172(Cal)
The petitioner in this case is Narsinghdas Bagree. It appears that he has been assessed to income-tax for a period of twenty years or more in District I(1), Calcutta. Since the inception of his file, he was assessed in the status of an 'individual' under G.I.R. No.I(1)/N-77-B. From the assessment year 1954-55 his status was changed to that of a 'Hindu undivided family.' It is stated that from the assessment year 1954-55, the petitioner filed returns in the status of a Hindu undivided family as well as that of an individual. Regular assessments in the status of Hindu undivided family were made under file No. 1(i)/77/B but the returns made in the individual status were merely filed. A file was started, being G.I.R. No. I(1)/N-317/B of the petitioner in his Hindu undivided family but it was merely noted therein that as the Hindu undivided family of the petitioner had already been assessed in the other file, no further action was necessary. Returns have been filed up to the assessment year...
Tag this Judgment!Trick (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Regent Oil Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1964
Reported in: [1965]57ITR716(Cal)
LORD DENNING M. R. The facts appear from the case stated in this case and in the previous case of Bolam v. Regent Oil Co. Ltd., and I will only state sufficient to show the problem. There are three large suppliers of petrol in this country - Shell, Esso and Regent. Since the war there has been intense competition between them. Each of these three great companies has sought to get the owners of garages of others. Each seeks to get the retailer to sell its brand of petrol exclusively. The competition is so intense that they call it an 'exclusively war'. The retailers have not been show to take advantage of this war between the giants. They have bid the one against the other. They ask each of the big companies : 'What will you pay me if I tie myself to your products ?' In the early stages the inducement held out by each company was a simple rebate. The company would offer the retailer a rebate of a farthing or thereabouts on every gallon of petrol if he would promise to sell its brand to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Hemlata Saha Vs. Stadmed Private Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal436,68CWN1007
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an application fur rectification of the share register of Stadmed Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) by recording the name of the petitioner in respect of 324 shares in the company out of 1940 shares registered in the names of the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 6, for payment of Rs. 5000/- as damages to petitioner and for costs.2. The company was registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, on October 31, 1945. One Gour Gopal Saha was one of the founderdirectors of the company which was formed to take over as a going concern the assets and business of the Standard Medical Research Institute. The said Gour Gopal Saha held 1940 shares in the company of Rs. 100/- each. He died on November 3, 1959, leaving as his heirs and legal representatives his widow who is the respondent No. 2, his mother who is the petitioner and his three suns and a daughter who are the respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. After the death of Gour Gopal, the share regis...
Tag this Judgment!Bhutnath Das and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Cal552,68CWN1124
R.S. Bachawat, J.1. The appellants in all these cases seek orders-from the Court in its writ jurisdiction commanding the respondents not to take possession of their; raiyati holdings. The common question in all these appeals is whether the raiyati holdings of the appellants vested in the State Government on the issue of the notification under Section 4 read with Section 52 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953. Before the issue of the notification the appellants held diverse lands as raiyats. Some of the appellants allege that the lands held by them are occupancy raiyati lands and that they themselves cultivate a major portion of the lands with the help of the servants and hired labourers and other portions of the lands are cultivated by bargadars. The validity of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953 and of the rules made thereunder are challenged on various grounds. The arguments before us have proceeded on the footing that the grounds set out in the petitions m the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Commerce Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Arun Kumar Chowdhury and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Cal333,68CWN858
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an application by the Official Receiver of this Court as official liquidator of Bank of Commerce Ltd. (In Liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as the bank) under Section 45B of the Banking Companies Act 1949, for determination of the rights of the bank and of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- lying to the credit of the Court, in title suit No. 36 of 1954, in the court of the 4th Subordinate Judge at Alipore, for an order that the Joint Receivers appointed by this Court in Suit No. 289 of 1959 (Bank of Commerce Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. Sailendranath Sinha and another) be allowed to withdraw the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and make over the same to the petitioner, for an injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from interfering in the matter of realisation and/or withdrawal or payment of the same to the petitioner and for costs.2. The petitioner had filed a suit in this Court being Suit No. 289 of 1959 (Bank of Commerce Ltd. (in Liqu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›