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.
Shaik Md. Omer Vs. the Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal16
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Banerjee J., dated 30th April, 1965 whereby the learned Judge has discharged the rule taken out by the appellant and made no order as to costs. The facts hi this case are shortly as follows: The appellant Shaik Md. Omer describes himself as an industrialist who is interested in breeding and maintenance of pedigree horses. In his petition he says that ha owns several horses which are treated and kept as his pet animals & that he also owns race horses & since 1950 he started breeding horses out of mares owned by him. He owns two stallions by the name of Pieta and Rontgen. He further says that he has earned considerable name and reputation as a race horse owner and For racing with the horses bred by himself and he has won several prizes awarded for horse-racing. In September, 1964 the appellant went to Europe and while in Switzerland he received a letter dated October 5, 1964 from Messrs. British Bloodstock Agency Ltd.. London, informing h...
Hansa Kumari Deb Barman Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Dist. Ii, I Wa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal252
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. The unending competition in ingenuity between the tax-gatherer and the taxpayer renders the application of the income-tax Law increasingly complicated. One such corn-plication requires to be resolved in this rule.2. One Srimati Padmavati Thakur was an assesses, having some income assessable to tax. For the years 1957-58 to 1961-62, the said Srimati Thakur was assessed to income-tax under Section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act 1922, in the following manner :--Assessment yearIncome assessedTax demanded1957-58Rs. 16,000/-Rs. 1506/- 1958.59Rs. 16,000/-Rs. 1506/- 1959-60Rs 20,500/-Rs. 2770.66 p.1960-61Rs. 20,500/-Rs. 2687.33 p.1961-82Rs. 20,500/-Rs. 2604/- According to the petitioner two of the notices of demand were issued on August 28, 1961, and the remaining three on January 12, 1962. Srimati Thakur appears to have filed five appeals against the five assessments referred to above, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, 'B' Range, Calcutta. Before, however, the...
Kalipada Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Cal480
B.C. Mitra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of D. Basu, J, dated September 11, 1964, whereby a Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution was discharged.2. The appellant runs a Soorki Mill, Saw Mill etc. at Municipal holding No. 16, Chatubabu's Ghat Lane, measuring more or less 212 1/4 acre, in the District of Howrah. A notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in the Calcutta Gazette on November 3, 1960 in which it was stated that the said land was likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, extension of Salkia Anglo Sanskrit School and Ushangini Balika Vidyalaya. It was also stated in this notice that the land was to be acquired partly at public expenses and partly at the expenses of the authorities of Salkia Anglo Sanskrit School. By a notice dated February 28, 1961, the appellant was informed that the date of the enquiry under Section ...
Mina Goswami Vs. Ramendra Nath Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal230
Chatterjee, J.1. This is an appeal from an order by an appellate Court sending the case back on remand for determination of the counter-claim by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff made various prayers; the plaintiff withdrew many of them, but the plaintiff succeeded in getting only a decree for ejectment in the trial court. In the trial Court the defendant No. 1 made a counter-claim as against the plaintiff. But on reasons not material at the present stage the counter-claim was dismissed 'as not placed for the time being'. Againstthat decree for ejectment an appeal was filed by the defendant No. 1. But the appeal was remanded on the question of counter-claim and the appeal against the decree for ejectment failed. There was no appeal so far as the counter-claim was concerned. The appeal court however dismissed the defendant's appeal so far as the claim for ejectment is concerned. But with regard to the counter-claim it remanded the suit to the trial court for determination only on the p...
Madan Bagdi and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal528
B.N. Dutt, J. 1. Nine persons were convicted by an Assistant Sessions Judge at Birbhum under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Six of them preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge of Birbhum. They filed a joint petition of appeal. This appeal was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge. He dismissed the appeal on the preliminary point that a joint petition of appeal by more than one convicted person was not maintainable in law The petitioners were three out of the said six appellants The petitioners have obtained this Rule against theaforesaid order of the Additional Sessions Judge. 2. The short question for consideration is if a joint petition of appeal by more than oneconvicted pennon is maintainable under Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion of Section 419 is as follows: 'Every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader' Does this...
Jyotirmoy Ghosh and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC343(Cal)
T.P. Mukherji, J. 1. The nine petitioners before us are all Commercial Tax Officers serving in the commercial tax directorate of the State Government and the rule issued at their instance is directed against an order passed by the Judge, Calcutta, 4th Additional Special Court, requiring them to produce certain documents as mentioned in the summonses served on them under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The summonses were issued in connection with a case under Sections 409/109 and 417/120B, Indian Penal Code, started against 83 accused persons.2. On the prayer of the prosecution the learned Judge issued summonses on the petitioners directing them to produce the documents mentioned therein. The petitioners produced certain documents in sealed covers along with individual petitions which sought to draw the attention of the court to the provisions of Section 25 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act of 1941, stating that the documents called for are protected against disclosure...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›