Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal423
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J.1. This is a rule I had issued on August 24, 1966, under Section 115 of the Procedure Code, 5 of 1908, at the instance of the first defendant, Jitendra Nath Mukherji, calling upon the plaintiff opposite party, the Commissioners of Baduria Municipality, (simply 'the municipality' hereafter, for short), to show cause why an appellate order dated August 20, 1966, which confirmed the order dated July 25, 1966, of the trial court, appointing a receiver in a pending suit, should not be set aside.2. The suit by the municipality is a suit for, amongst others, for three declarations. One, the agreement executed by and between the petitioner Jitendra, on one hand, and the then chairman of the municipality, Nandalal Sarkhel by name, on the other,--defendants both--,on April 22, 1965, and put to registration on April 24, 1965, touching a hat of the municipality, is collusive, illegal, void etc. Two, on the foot of such an agreement, the petitioner Jitendra, the first defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal382,[1968]67ITR254(Cal)
Sinha, C.J. 1. In this case we are concerned with the Income-tax assessment of the petitioner Sheo Nath Singh for the years 1941-42 to 1946-47. The petitioner, according to his own petition, has at all material times been a shareholder of a number of companies engaged in the business of managing hotels and as a result of such shareholding, he became director and managing director of various companies. At one time he became the owner of a large block of shares of Spence's Hotel Ltd. and was formerly an ex-managing director, and is now incharge of the management thereof. According to the petitioner, in the year 1945-46 Rai Bahadur Oberoi purchased from him his share-holding in the Associated Hotels of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Associated Hotels') for a sum of Rs. 20,65,705-13-0 pies. Similarly, in 1949 another block of shares was purchased by the said Rai Bahadur Oberoi in the said company. It appears that the case of Rai Bahadur Oberoi was referred to the Income-Tax In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal499
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. The question for determination on this Income Tax Reference is:-- '1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunalin its order dated 27th March 1961, havingheld that the Income Tax Officer has madeaddition of Rs. 4,60,000/- to the income ofthe appellant without any basis and arbitrarily,was it justified in adding estimated income andis such addition arbitrary and fanciful andbased on no materials? 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case was the Appellate Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that any part of the income of Hanuman and Company should be added to the income of the appellant or wasthe same done arbitrarily and without any materials?' 2. The statement of the case in this Reference makes the following farts relevant for the purpose of determining or deciding this question. 3. The assessee is Nandalal Kasera of 243 Ghittaranjan Avenue and an individual, owning some properties and having a share in the firm of Messrs. Bengal Kopak Ginning. The assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal612
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal is by the defendant and it arises out of a suit for ejectment. 2. The suit was instituted on 22ncl September. 1958. It had a long chequered career, and eventually, when it was decreed by the learned trial Judge on 30th March, 1963, the defendant's prayer for relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act was refused by him as not being in accordance with law. 3. It is from this decree that the present appeal has been filed by the tenant defendant, and the only point, which has been urged in support of this appeal, is that, in the circumstances of this case, the defendant appellant should be given relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act and the ejectment on the ground of forfeiture of the lease for nonpayment of rent, as stipulated therein, should be refused. 4. In our view, relief against forfeiture under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act being a discretionary relief--the discretion, no doubt being a judicial discre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1968]70ITR29(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - The question for determination on this income-tax reference is :'1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 27th March, 1961, having held that the Income-tax Officer has made addition of Rs. 4,60,000 to the income of the appellant without any basis and arbitrarily, was it justified in adding the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the income of the appellant as estimated income and is such addition arbitrary and fanciful and based on no materials ?2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Appellate Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that any part of the income of Hanuman & Co. should be added to the income of the appellant or was the same done arbitrarily and without any materials ?'The statement of case in this reference makes the following facts relevant for the purpose of determining or deciding the question.The assessee is Nandlal Kasera of 243, Chittaranjan Avenue, and an individual, owing some properties and having a share in the firm ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1968]38CompCas129(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. On the application of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioning creditor), Datta J. made an order, dated June 24, 1966, for the winding-up of the applicant-company, Bangeswari Cotton Mills Ltd., under the provisions of the Companies Act.2. The applicant states that on June 29, 1966 (not June 24, 1966, as wrongly stated in paragraph 21 of the petition), the court clerk of the applicant's then solicitor, Messrs. T. C. Roy and Co., applied for certified copy of the judgment as well as of the order. He did not, however, at that time, put in the requisition for the completion of the order under the mistaken belief, as the court clerk said, that the solicitor for the petitioning creditor must have put in the requisition. On August 5, 1966, the said court clerk made enquiries about certified copies and came to learn that nobody having had made any requisition for the drawing up of the order the same was not drawn up and as such certified copies were not ready...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal216,71CWN82
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. As I said in my Order on the application for contempt arising out of the instant proceeding, earlier, the dispute to which the instant proceeding relates has behind it a history of constitutional importance, which must be recounted in order to appreciate the nature of the present proceeding. 2. It is a dispute relating to the division between India and Pakistan of the Berubari Union No. 12, a group of villages lying within the territory of India, for the purpose of ceding half of it to Pakistan in pursuance of the Agreement, which was entered into between the two Governments on the 10th September, 1958. Some doubts having arisen as to whether this could be effected without a proper legislation, the President referred the question for the opinion of the Supreme Court, under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court gave its opinion as reported in : [1960]3SCR250 . The Supreme Court opined that since the Agreement between the two Governments, referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ95Cal
D.N. Sinha, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal, dated 27 December 1964 (?).2. The facts are briefly as follows.3. An application was filed by one Alladi Bibee, mother of Ouladi Khan, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), for a lump-Bum compensation of Rs. 3,000 against Gopal Das Nandy and Gobinda Das Nandy, heirs and legal representatives of one Akshoy Kumar Nandy, since deceased. The case of the petitioner is that Ouladi Khan, her son, was a painter-mistri. One Abdul Oudad Khan took Ouladi Khan to help him in a painting job at the Konnagar house, said to belong to the said Akshoy Kumar Nandy, deceased, and while he was working at a scaffolding from a height of over 20 feet, fell down and died. The lady first of all filed a case against the said Abdul Oudad Khan but the claim failed because there was no cause of action, and later on this application was filed against the h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal633,72CWN151
ORDER1. This is a reference under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent, arising on a difference of opinion between my learned brothers. Banerjee and D Basu JJ.2. The point of difference has not been stated by their Lordships but it is clear that, for their ultimate difference on the question whether the present Rule should or should not succeed, the material of immediate conflict between them was whether, to the instant case, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, would apply, or, more precisely, whether the opposite party No. 1 was a tenant under the petitioner so as to be entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent under the above Act and, in that connection, their Lordships primarily differed on the question whether the document Ext. A was a lease, as understood under the general law.3. The material facts have been sufficiently stated by their Lordships and it is unnecessary to repeat or reiterate the same. Suffice it to say that Banerjee, J. was of the view that the above document ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1968)ILLJ329Cal
Arun K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal from the Judgment and award of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation passed on 30 November 1965.2. The short facts of the case are as follows:The claimant is the widow of one Monir Sardar who at the time of his death was working as a sardar on board the ship S.S. Kasimbar at Hastings Mooring as a workman employed under Sarat Chatterjee & Co. (Private), Ltd., the appellant, in this appeal. On the night of 4 August 1963 while Monir was working in the hold of the ship at 2-45 am. he felt' very hot.' He was advised to go up on the deck. Somebody went with him. Some time after that and before 8-45 a.m., Monir died. How he died is not known, nor do we know the exact point of time when he died. There is some discrepancy about the circumstances of his death to which we shall refer later but there is no question that he died soon after he went up on the deck. There was no post mortem examination of Monirs body. As it appears, about eigh...
Tag this Judgment!