Kolkata Court January 1965 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.
Chunilal Kothari and ors. Vs. Sm. Gopi Devi Mimani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Cal630
Sinha, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The facts are shortly as follows: Testamentary suit No. 4 of 1954 was filed by Sm. Gopi Devi Memani, praying for Letters of Administration to the Estate of Meghraj Kothari, deceased, and that a right be reserved for her mother Mussamat Gohar Bai to apply to grant in her favour in the event of her gaming sanity, and for other reliefs. The application was opposed and on the 14th of May, 1962 Mallick, J. passed a decree granting Letters of Administration to the Estate of Meghraj Kothari to one Gangadas Binani. The petitioners Chunilal Kothari, Hiralal Kothari, Kanhaiyalal Kothari and Sm. Mathura Bai appealed against the said order, the appeal being numbered as appeal No. 163 of 1962. On the 24th of February, 1964 the appeal came up for hearing before Bachawat, J. and my learned brother A.K. Mukherjea, J. The appeal was allowed in part and the learned Judges directed tha...
In Re: New Monkhooshi Tea Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal196
ORDERS. Datta, J. 1. This is an application under Section 155 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 for the rectification of the share register of the company. The more, material facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues between the parties are set out hereinafter.2. Smt. Kumndini Dasi and her minor sons Rabindra and Arabinda were the joint holders of 600 shares of the Company, bearing numbers 38636 to 38935 and 77899 to 78198. In or about 1957 the company issued bonus shares which entitled the abovementioned joint holders to 300 bonus shares of the company. The company accordingly issued a letter of allotment indicating that the three abovementioned persons were entitled jointly to the 300 bonus snares. The company however, in fact issued a share certificate which bore the name of one of the joint holders only, namely, Smt. Kumudini Dasi. On or about the 4th day of July 1960 the said Kumudini Dasi armed with the said share certificate for 300 bonus shares bearing distinctive n...
Sambhunath Auddy Vs. Tarak Nath Auddy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Cal450
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Ray, J. on May 19, 1964 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application made by the plaintiff appellant for amongst others the following reliefs:(a) That the time to make payment into Court in terms of the decree dated May 20, 1957 in suit No. 2477 of 1955 be extended till one week after the date of the order, or till such time as this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper; (b) That the petitioner be permitted to pay the the sum of Rs. 2166.42 nP. or such other sum as this Hon'ble Court may direct into the credit of the said suit within such extended time: (c) That upon payment as aforesaid, the respondent Tarak Nath Auddy do deliver all documents in his possession relating to premises No. 30B, Ramdhan Mitra Lane, Calcutta to the appellant and if necessary, release for or reconvey the said premises to the appellant and deliver quiet and peaceable possession of the same. 2. The short facts in this case are as follows: One A...
Md. Taha and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal359,69CWN801
B.C. Mitra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Banerjee, J., dated February, 19, 1963, discharging a rule obtained by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution. The fads relating to the matter are set out below. 2. A Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of certain plots of land for settlement of immigrants who had migrated into the State of West Bengal. The land in question is in the district of Hooghly, the total area being 245.61 acres. The appellants being aggrieved by the Notification, applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind or withdraw the Notification or in the alternative a writ of certiorari for quashing the said Notification. On this application a rule was issued and this appeal is directed against the order discharging this rule. 3. Mr. Arun Kumar Dutta, learned advocate for the appellants, contended that Sect...
State Bank of India Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1965
Reported in: [1965]57ITR235(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - The partition of British India and the constitution of Dominions of India and Pakistan, in the year 1947, brought in their heels many problems, including the problem of avoidance of double taxation of assesses petitioner, State Bank of India and Pakistan. The petitioner, State Bank of India, is confronted with such a difficulty and has approached this court for relief.A bank called the Imperial Bank of India was constituted under the Imperial Bank of India Act (XL VII of 1920) and took over the undertakings of the then existing Presidency banks at Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. The said Imperial Bank of India had numerous branches, inter alia, in territories now comprised in Pakistan. On July 1,1955, the State Bank of India Act (XXII of 1955) came into force and by virtue of the said Act the entire undertaking of the Imperial Bank of India, along with all its properties, rights and liabilities, devolved on and vested in the petitioner-bank. Assessment of Income-tax was, as ...
Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuri ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal1
Arun K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is from a judgment and order dated June 14, 1962 passed by Ray, J. by which Ray, j. dismissed an application of the appellant for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent which had been granted to the plaintiff in the instant suit. The facts of the case are briefly as follows.2. The appellant is u private limited company with its registered office at Bombay and if* a producer of cinematographic films and motion pictures. The appellant produced u film called 'Mughal-E-Azam'. On or about June 19, 1959 there was an agreement in writing by and between the appellant and a firm named Messrs. Chitrabani by which the appellant appointed the said Messrs, Chitrabani as the sole distributor of the said film for a territory which is known to the film trade as Bombay circuit. Under that agreement the said Messrs. Chitrabani were given license for sole and exclusive exhibition, distribution and exploitation of the picture in the said Bombay circui...
India Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal475,[1967]64ITR301(Cal)
Mitter, J. 1. The question referred to this Court under section 66 (1) of the Act is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 43,925/-received by the assessee represented business income arising under Section 10 from an adventure in the nature of trade or it was dividend within the meaning of Section 12 of the Income-tax Act?'2. In his application to the Appellate Tribunal for reference to this Court the assessee posed no less than four questions the last of which was:'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee had purchased the arrears of dividend? If so, whether the said sum of Rs. 43,925/- could at all be assessed either as dividend or as profit?'3. The question referred might lead one to think that the assessee did not dispute the taxability of the sum of Rs. 43,925/- and that the point at issue was whether the receipt would fall under Section 10 or under Section 12. This however would not accurately describe the stand taken by...
Balai Chand Seal Vs. K.M. Chakravarti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal81,69CWN273,[1966]17STC300(Cal)
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner was a bullion merchant and vised to carry on business under the trade name Messrs. Balai Chand Seal. The said business stands closed with effect from Chaitra 25, 1363 (corresponding to April 8, 1957).2. While he was in the business, the petitioner obtained, on December 18, 1942 his registration as a dealer under Section 7 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The certificate of registration specified the following classes of goods as saleable to the petitioner free of sales tax, namely, gold, silver and specie. Subsequently, two more items, namely guineas and monurs, were added to the specification. The specification was, however, of little utility to the petitioner because up to September 24, 1955, bullion and specie were exempted from sales tax under item 22 of schedule of exempted goods read with the provisions of Section 6 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.3. On August 18, 1955, there was a Bill published in the Calcutta Gaze...
Ram Hari De Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Cal552,69CWN317,(1965)IILLJ230Cal
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of B. C. Mitra, J., dated 9th July, 1963. The learned Judge was dealing with a number of appeals under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, against the decision of the Official Liquidator rejecting the claims of the appellants to various sums of moneys to which they claim to be entitled by reason of termination of their services under the Bank of China (in liquidation). The facts are shortly as follows: The Bank of China carried on business in India. Sometime in May, 1962 the Reserve Bank of India revoked the license given to it for doing foreign exchange business in India, thereby making it impossible for it to act as an exchange bank. On the 14th June, 1962 the Bank of China issued a notice under paragraph 522(6) of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award, intimating its intention to effect retrenchment of staff with regard to certain employees on the ground that consequent upon revocation by the Reserve Bank of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›