Kolkata Court May 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.
Badri Prosad Bajoria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1965
Reported in: [1967]64ITR362(Cal)
The judgment of MITTER and MASUD JJ., against which the application for leave to appeal was filed, was as follows :MASUD J. - In this reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the short point to be decided is to determine whether the date of the assessment order is the date on which it is passed or the date on which it is served on the assessee. The facts of the case are briefly state as follows :The assessee is a partner in three registered firms, namely, M/s, Bajoria & Co., M/s. Nand Kishore & Co. (A/c. No. 2) and M/s National shipping Co. He also derives income from dividends and also directors fees and commission from Star Paper Mills Ltd. and Hall & Anderson Ltd. The assessment year in question is 1954-55 and the corresponding previous year is the financial year 1953-54. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment for the year 1954-55 on 26th March, 1959, on an income of Rs. 42,318. Thereafter, a notice of demand under section 29 of the Income-tax Act demandin...
Champarun Sugar Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Haridas Mundhra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal134,69CWN815
Sinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: On or about 19th day of April, 1961 the respondent No. 1 Haridas Mundhra filed a suit in this Court being suit No. 600 of 1961 (Haridas Mundhra v. Mrs. Mary Therese Turner and Ors.) for specific performance of an agreement relating to the sale of 51 per cent ordinary shares in Turner Morrison and Co. Private Limited and for other reliefs. In the plaint of the said suit, it was alleged as follows: J.G. Turner, M.F. Turner and one A.G. Turner held the entire controlling interest in Hungerford Investment Trust Limited, the third defendant in the suit. The Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., controlled the entire share capital of M/s. Turner Morrison and Co., Private Ltd., the 4th defendant in the said suit. On the 29th November, 1955 Mundhra made an offer to purchase49 per cent of the entire issued capital of the said M/s. Turner Morrison and Co. Private Ltd. On the 8th December, 1955 the said Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., acce...
General Manager, Eastern Rly and anr. Vs. Kshirode Chandra Khasmobis
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal601
P.BMukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by J.P. Mitter, J, making absolute the Rule obtained by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution and setting aside the order of the Railway Administration retiring the petitioner on the 19th October, 1956 as having reached the super-annuation age.2. The facts of the case may be stated at the outset. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Traffic Department of the East Indian Railway Company in the Company days on the 22nd April, 1921. The age recorded in his service record then was 19 years 6 months on appointment. The East Indian Railway Company was taken over by the State i.e. by the Government of India on the 1st January, 1925. On the 15th November, 1940 the petitioner made an application stating that his age was 18 years 1 month and 21 days on the date of appointment. This was about 20 years after his joining the service. In that letter, a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner and annexed to...
State of West Bengal Vs. Dhajadhari Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Cal402,(1968)ILLJ633Cal
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of D. N. Sinha, J. allowing an application of the petitioner-respondent Dhajadhari Dtta under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India, Home (Police) Department, New Delhi; State of West Bengal of Police; Inspector-General of Police and the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal. Against that order, the State of West Bengal, represented by the Secretary Home (Police) Department; Inspector-General of Police and the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal have appealed.2. The facts briefly arc as follows: The petitioner-respondent was appointed as a Sub-Inspector of Police on 2-1-1925. He was promoted as Inspector of Police in May 1942. He was confirmed in that post in November 1944. In April 1945 he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was confirmed in that post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1947 and his rank was the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, on 26...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›