Kolkata Court February 1966 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.
Asoke Kumar Sarkar and anr. Vs. Radha Kanto Pandey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal178,1967CriLJ455
Mukharji, J.1. This is a Rule in contempt. Sri. A.K. Sarkar, Editor, Anandabazar Patrika and Sri Suresh Chandra Bhattacharya, Printer and Publisher, Anandabazar Patrika are the petitioners who obtained this Rule to commit to prison these four persons. (1) Kadha Kanta Pandey, (2) Monoranjan Bhowmick, (3) Ratan Maheswari and (4) S.C. Chowdhuri. The first three opposite parties are representation theSoulmari Ashram and Sri S.N. Choudhuri, the fourth opposite party is their Solicitor on record.2. The main and the only ground for contempt is stated to be a letter written by the Solicitor opposite party S.N. Chaudhari to the petitioner dated 16th August. 1965 in which the Solicitor under instructions from the first three opposite parties and members of the Soulmari Ashram, complained of an item of news made, printed and published by the said Paper which was alleged to be defamatory. The letter of the Solicitor in the penultimate paragraph stated.'If you fail or neglect to furnish the informa...
Kartick Kundu Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1411
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. The petitioner in this criminal revision was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hooghly under 8s. 376 and 493 of the Penal Code and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment under each of these two charges and the sentences were to run concurrently. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the order of his conviction was confirmed, so also the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment in respect of the charge under Section 493 of the Penal Code. But the appellate court set aside the separate sentence in respect of the charge under Section 376 of the Penal Code. The petitioner has come up in revision against that order of conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows:Raj Mohan Rana, was an inhabitant of village Teghoria within Aramhagh police station in the district of Hooghly. He shifted to his father in. law's house at Dihiaoira where he used to live with his wife Drmila and children ...
ikrahnandi Coal Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1966
Reported in: [1968]22STC229(Cal)
Ray, J.1. The question in this reference is as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 41,125 was assessable to tax as the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59?2. The assessment year was 1958-59 and the relevant previous year was the calender year 1957.3. The assessee is a partnership firm. It supplied coal and coke as commission agents to different parties. The assessee purchased coal from collieries in West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and other collieries outside the State of Bombay and supplied the same to parties in the State of Bombay and received commission either from the party or from the collieries or from both. Coal was usually consigned by the collieries directly to the party concerned but the bills were sent by the colliery to the assessee who in its turn made out a bill charging the party, in addition to the amount of the bill of the colliery, its commission as well as Bombay sales tax at 3 pies per rupee. In the acc...
ikrahnandi Coal Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, CalcuttA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1966
Reported in: [1968]69ITR488(Cal)
RAY J. - The question in this reference is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 41,125 was assessable to tax as the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1958-59 ?'The assessment year was 1958-59 and the relevant previous year was the calendar year 1957.The assessee is a partnership firm. It supplied coal and coke as commission agents to different parties. The assessee purchased coal from collieries in West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and other collieries outside the State of Bombay and supplied the same to parties in the State of Bombay and received commission either from the party or from the collieries or from both. Coal was usually consigned by the collieries directly to the party concerned but the bills were sent by the colliery to the assessee who in its turn made out a bill charging the party, in addition to the amount of the bill of the colliery, its commission as well as Bombay sales tax @ 3 pies per rupee. In the accounts...
Teamco Private Ltd. Vs. T.M.S. Mani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal168
A.N. Sen, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, whereby the learned Judge has directed the filing of the arbitration agreement in court.2. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgment of the court below and it is not necessary to repeat the same. It may only be noted that there is not much of dispute with regard to the facts.3. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal may, however, be briefly stated, T.M.S. Mani, the plaintiff in the action and the respondent in this appeal was appointed a selling agent and sales organiser by Messrs Teamco Private Ltd., the defendant in the action and the appellant herein under an agreement in writing dated 1-4-61. There is an arbitration clause contained in Clause 11 of the said agreement. Clause 11 of the said agreement provides as follows:In case of any dispute arising between the parties, the matter should be referred to the arbitrators, elected b...
Moddari BIn Vs. Sukdeo Bin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal136,1967CriLJ335,70CWN686
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a Referenceby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore, under Section 438 read with Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality and propriety of the order of the Magistrate dated the 7th November, 1964 which is in the following terms:'The opposite party is produced under arrest. He is sentenced to R. I. for 6 months for failure to pay maintenance for 9 months and 16 days for the period from 16-9-63 to 30-6-64 without any excuse as he has means to pay.'2. The first point raised in the Letter of Reference is whether it could be said that on the facts of this case the Magistrate had any evidence to show that the opposite party Suk-deo Bin had means to pay, but did not pay and whether he made any enquiry for that purpose on the records of this case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to come to the conclusion that the Magistrate was wrong in throwing the opposite party to prison when he was brought under arrest before ...
Dhaneswar Choudhary and ors. Vs. Subodh Kumar Sett and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal334
T.P. Mukherji, J. 1. This second appeal at the instance of the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of reversal passed by a Subordinate Jude at Howrah in a suit for recovery of rent for the period Bhadra 1363 to Sravan 1366 B.S. The plaintiff's case was that they are the landlords to the extent of a one-third share in the property in suit and the defendants are the tenants under them and the pro forma defendants 2 to 10. 2. On behalf of the defendants, it was claimed that the plaintiffs have no interest in the property in view of the vesting of the same in the State of West Bengal under West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act. A further objection to the plaintiffs' claim that was urged before me was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to realise the rent in their one-third share as claimed in view of the fact that there was no contract with them to pay them one-third share of the rent, nor did the plaintiffs ever realise from the defendants rent in their alleged one-thi...
Howrah Trading Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Cent ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR582(Cal)
D. BASU J. - The question of law referred to us under section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, in this, is :'Was the Tribunal justified in coming to conclusion that, upon the facts admitted or found before them, the Income-tax Officer was entitled to proceed under the proviso to section 13 as regards the assessment of the engineering department of the assessee for the relevant assessment year ?'The facts from which this reference arises may be briefly stated as follows : The assessee, a private limited company, carried on the business of manufacturing, iron pipe, drain pipes, etc., from raw materials in the assessment year 1953-54. It was noticed by the Income-tax Officer that the profit of the assessee could not be properly determined from the method of accounting kept by the assessee in relation to the quantity of raw materials received for manufacture and the volume of finished products, because while the receipts of raw materials were shown by weight, the finished goods were account...
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Gourishankar Lal SinghA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR711(Cal)
SINHA J. - This is an application for substitution in a pending application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The facts are shortly as follow : The proceedings relate to the assessment of one Gouri Sankar Lall Singha (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'). The assessee received certain dividends from Ukhra Estate Zamindaries Ltd. and claimed that these dividends were not taxable because they came out of the funds of the company which were not in any sence taxable profits. The Income-tax Officer held against the assessee and this was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The assessee thereupon requested the Tribunal to make a reference to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The Tribunal thereupon referred the following question under the provision of section 66(1) of the said Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 2,344 was rightly included as dividend in the total incom...
Azizus Subhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the Secy., Ministry of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal570
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of Banerjee, J. dated June 22, 1965, rejecting the appellants application for a Rule Nisi in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The only question in this appeal is if in the facts hereinafter stated, a Rule Nisi should be issued.2. The appellant is the grandson of the late Khan Bahadur Shamsul Alam, who held the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and who was assassinated in 1910 while appearing for the prosecution in a political case. In recognition of his services and for support of thedependent members of his family, the then Government of India granted a Jaigir in respect of certain mouzas in the District of Murshidabad. By a sanad dated June 10, 1912, the grant of the jaigir was made to the widow of me late Khan Bahadur, the grandmother of the appellant, the grant being limited to her eldest male descendant. The appellant as the eldest surviving male descendant field the said Jaigir until the happening...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »