Kolkata Court March 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.
Bhola Singh and ors. Vs. Gosto Behari Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal199
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order of the learned Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta dismissing in one single judgment eight objections by eight set of tenants to the eight distress warrants issued by that Court. It raises the important question of the nature, scope and validity of the distress procedure provided in Chapter VIII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.2. The main objections to these distress warrants can be classified broadly under two heads. The first objection is a plea of payment.The second objection is that the landlord, Gosto Behari Sarcar, was not alone entitled to maintain the application for distress warrant and get an order for such a warrant.3. The facts briefly are as follows: A private company by the name of Sarkar Estate Private Ltd. was ordered by this Court to be wound up on the 4th March 1960. Upto August 1960 rent was paid by these petitioner-tenants to Gosto Behari Sarcar and Brothers (Sarkar Estate Priv...
Amritraj Kothari Vs. Golecha Financiers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal315
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J.1. This is an application for stay of a suit under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. It is not disputed that the disputes in suit are covered by the arbitration clause in the contract subsisting between the parties. In fact such disputes have already been referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has taken step in the suit and in consequence the suit is not liable to be stayed. The facts relevant to the determination of the question may now be shortly stated. The suit was instituted on December 23, 1964. On the same date the plaintiff took out a notice of motion and obtained an interim injunction. The notice was returnable on January 4, 1965. What happened on January 1, 1965 when the motion was called will appear from paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Sunil Kumar Mitra which reads as follows:''On January 1, 1965 the injunction and Receiver matter appeared as 'New Motion' before the Hon'...
Bengal Enamel Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR472(Cal)
MASUD J. - The short point to be decided in this preference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is to determine how far the remuneration of an employee of the assessee company could be disallowed on the ground that the expenditure is not laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessees business within the meaning of section 10(2) (xv). In the instant case, the assessee is a public limited company doing business in enamelling. The assessment year in question is 1951-52 and the corresponding accounting year is the calendar year 1950. By a resolution dated 18th May, 1950, the board of directors of the assessee company appointed on Dr. U. P. Ganguli in the post of technical adviser of the company with effect from 1st January, 1950, at a remuneration equal to 15 per cent. on the annual gross profits of the company before allowing depreciation. The assessee-company claimed deduction of Dr. Gangulis remuneration in the assessment year in question amoun...
Sriram Jhabarmull (Kalimpong) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR314(Cal)
MASUD J. - The facts in this reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, are stated as follows :The assessee, a limited liability company it its registered office at Kalimpong, carries on substantial business at Kalimpong with Tibetan traders in the purchase and sale of wool and textiles. The assessment years under consideration of this reference is the year 1950-51 and the corresponding year of account is 2006 R. M. in the year of account, a sum of Rs. 70,000 was found credited in the assessees books of account in the name of a Tibetan, Kunjo Amdo Bhutia. The assessee explained this cash credit as sum deposited by Kunjo Amddo who being an illiterate and simple Tibetan did not believe in doing business through banks. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the assessees explanation as to the genuineness of the alleged deposit of Rs. 70,000. On appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kunjo Amdo gave evidence on 9th April, 1957. The Appellate Assistant Commission...
Kamala Kunwar Vs. Lakshan Goala and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal105
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code raises an important question about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters which have already been the subject of an award under the Land Acquisition Act.2. The petitioner is a defendant in a civil suit instituted by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs being Title Suit No. 699 of 1959. In that suit the plaintiffs pray for a declaration of their title to the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner defendant by the Land Acquisition Collector and for an injunction restraining the petitioner from withdrawing the said amount from the Court of the Special Land Acquisition Judge of 24 Parganas. Analysing the plaint it appears that the whole of the plaintiffs' allegation in that suit is that one of them did not receive notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, that the defendant obtained the award fraudulently behind their back, that the plaintiffs were th...
Khaje Ahmmed Sheikh Vs. Abdul Mannan Mridday and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1965
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1228
ORDERD.N. Das Gupta, J.1. This Revisional petition is directed against the order of the learned Sub divisional Magistrate of Kalna discharging the opposite parties obviously under Section 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. An application for drawing up proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C., was made by the petitioner-first party on the 30th July 1963. Proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C., were drawn up on the 30th August 1963, On 16th March 1964 cause was shown by the opposite parties. The first party made a prayer for an order under Section 117 (s), Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate adjourned the case to the 31st March 1964 for evidence. On the 31st March 1964 the petitioner did not adduce any evidence but made a prayer for time and for calling for certain records. The case was adjourned to 21st July 1964. On that date the petitioner filed certain documents and again made a prayer for an order under Section 117 (3), Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate thou...
Pherumal and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal461
ORDERP.C. Mallick, J. 1. This is an application for removal of an arbitrator and for appointment of a new arbitrator in his place and stead. The petitioner is a firm of contractors who did certain works for the South Eastern Railway under a contract. The contract contains an arbitration clause being clause No. 34 whereby the dispute between the parties under the contract shall be referred to the arbitration of such railway officer retired or in service as shall be nominated to be the arbitrator by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway for the time being in his absolute discretion.' The petitioner instituted a suit in this Court being Suit No. 965 of 1960, inter alia, for recovery of the balance of his claim for works done and for refund of security deposit. On the application of the Government under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act the suit was stayed on February 6, 1961. Against this order of stay an appeal was preferred but ultimately the appeal was withdrawn by consent....
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Hirendra Nath Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal285
Sinha, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of Basu, J., dated 5th March, 1965 whereby ha made the rule absolute and issued a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the State of West Bengal from removing the respondent from the post of Registrar, Rent Controller's Office, Calcutta, otherwise than in due course of law, and not to give effect to certain orders in that he-half.2. The post of a Registrar of the Rent Controller's office, Calcutta, has been createdby statute, namely, Section 26 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (West Bengal Act XII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The relevant provisions are as follows:'26. Appointment of Controller, Additional and Deputy Controllers and Registrars.- (1) The State Government may, by notification, appoint a person to be the Controller for any area or part of area to which this Acts extends to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Controller in accordance with the provisions of this Act in su...
Radhakrishna Hazra Vs. Joykrishna Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Cal204
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. These are two appeals by the two contending parties against the same judgment of the lower appellate court.2. The suit was a suit for eviction on the ground that the defendant was a licensee in respect of the disputed properly under the plaintiff.3. The suit was contested and the defence set up a claim of rival title to the disputed property and denied that he was a mere licensee. A further plea was raised that he had erected valuable constructions on the disputed land at considerable costs and so could not be evicted therefrom.4. The suit was decreed in part by the learned trial Judge, who held that me defendant was a licensee, and rejected his rival claim of title but disallowed the plaintiff's prayer for recovery of possession upon the view that the defendant having erected permanent structures and incurred considerable expenditure in respect of the same, he was protected from eviction, even if he was a licensee upon the principle, underlying Section 60 of the ...
Pramatha Nath Talukdar Vs. Maharaja Probirendra M. Tagore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal405
P.C. Mallick, J. 1. This is a suit to establish title in six items of movables said to be of great artistic value, for possession thereof and for damages. The said goods are old curios originally belonging to the defendant Maharaja. On June 25, 1960 and on July 25, 1960 the plaintiff claims to have purchased the same from the Maharaja along with a number of other goods for Rs. 33,650 and Rs. 24,150. These goods at the dates of sale were lying in the Durbar Hall of the Tagore Castle belonging to the Maharaja defendant. The delivery of the goods was to be given on or before December 31, 1960. All the goods sold were taken delivery of by the plaintiff from time to time except the six items which are the subject matter of this litigation. It is alleged that shortly after the sale on September 17, 1960 the defendant Maharaja purported to have hypothecated a number of artistic goods lying in the same Durbar Hall to the defendant Madhodas Mundra. The plaintiff's case is that the movables sold...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›