Kolkata Court April 1966 Judgments
Asansol Bus Association Vs. Asst. Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal371,(1968)ILLJ229Cal
Sinha, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of Banerjee, J. dated the 22nd May, 1962 by which he summarily rejected the application and refused to issue a Rule. 2. The facts are shortly as follows : 3. The appellant before us is the Asansol Bus Association, a body corporate incorporated under Section 28 of the Indian Companies Act. It represents persons in Asansol carrying on business of running motor buses, taxi-cabs etc. It is stated that the Association has been authorised by the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan, to prepare a time-table for the smooth running of the buses in or about Asansol. The timetable prepared by the Association is approved by the Regional Transport Authority before it is given effect to. The Association has also been authorised by the Regional Transport Authority to appoint time-keepers for the purpose of noting whether the buses arrive and depart in all stages, according to the time-table prepared by the Association and approved by the Regional Tra...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR330(Cal)
SEN J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the Act. In this reference the following question arises for out opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,24,199 was deductible from the business income of the assessee either under section 10(1) or section 10(2) (xi) or section 10(2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act ?'The Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. is the assessee. It is a public limited company and has its registered office at Calcutta. The relevant previous year ended on December 31, 1954. The principal business of the assessee is manufacture of aluminium ingots, sheets and such other products from aluminium. Under an agreement dated January 31, 1947, between the assessee and one Messrs. Aluminium Laboratories Ltd., Montreal (Canada), the latter agreed to provide the assessee from time to time with technical information, engineering service and advice regarding development for an annual retai...
Tag this Judgment!Bibhuti Bhusan Ghosh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1966
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1232
ORDERA.K. Das, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order of the Police Magistrate, Sealdah imposing a fine of Bs. 1,000-/ only for failure to produce the accused persons for whom he stood surety.2. What happened is as follows: The petitioner Bibhuti Bhusan Ghosh, a muktear practising at Sealdah Courts stood surety for appearance in court of one Batan Mondal convicted under Section 304-A I.P.C. and Section 118-A Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months for his conviction under Section 304-A I.P.C. The order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 19th June 1963 and he was released on executing a bond of Rs. 2,000/- with a surety for like amount for moving an appeal against the conviction and sentence by 8.7.63. The realisation of the fine was consequently stayed. The learned Sessions Judge before whom the convicted person appealed by his order dated l.7.63 stayed realisation of fine and allowed ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Chandra Gupta and Co., Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal385,72CWN274,[1968]69ITR254(Cal)
Ray, J.1. The question in this reference is as follows:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the transaction which resulted in the loss of Rs. 33,736 was a speculative transaction within the meaning of explanation 2 to Section 24(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and therefore the said loss should not be allowed to be set off under Section 240) of the said Act 2. The relevant assessment year is 1959-60 and the corresponding previous year is Dewali year 2015 ending on 9th November, 1958. The respondent assessee is a partnership firm having business in paper bags, gunny bags and other commodities. During the relevant previous year it had entered into transactions in gunny bags entailing purchase and sale of delivery orders. This was done according to the prevailing practice in the Calcutta Jute trade where formal transactions in gunny, hessian etc. are carried on by the transfer of the relative delivery orders only on full payment of the purchase or sale prices. ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Roy Vs. Addl. Member, Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal338,[1966]18STC379(Cal)
D. Basu, J. 1. The facts, as stated in the Statement of Case in this Reference, are as follows : 2. The assessment year is the year ending March, 1952, and the Assessee is the Bhowrah Coal Co., a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Assessee's claim for exemption from being taxed under the Act, on two categories of transactions have been disallowed and this disallowance has led to this reference. These two transactions are (i) 'Sales of coal made to certain shipping agents for shipment of coal to countries outside India and (ii) Sales of coal made to B. N. R.' (i) As regards the first item, the facts are that at the relevant period, under the provisions of the Colliery Control Order, 1945 coal could not he exported out of India without the sanction of the Government. The latter placed orders for export through dealers selected by it and such dealers delivered the good to the shipping agents as directed in the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Major B.A.S. Chopra Vs. the New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal35
B.N. Banerjee, J. 1. The plaintiff sues the defendant insurance company for recovery of Rs. 9,000, with interest thereon, on a motor car insurance policy in respect of his Lanchester Saloon Car, which was said to have been lost to the plaintiff by theft; alternatively the plaintiff claims an enquiry as to damages for loss of the car by theft and a decree for the amount of damages so ascertained.2. According to the plaintiff, by a policy of insurance, dated March 24, 1961, the defendant company, in consideration of premium paid, insured the plaintiff and undertook to indemnify him against loss of or damage to his abovementioned car, for a sum of Rs. 10,000 and agreed that if the car was lost, inter alia, by theft, at any time during March 18, 1961 and December 28, 1961, the defendant company would pay to the plaintiff the value of the said car at the time of such theft, provided that the liability of the defendant company would not exceed on the whole the said sum of Rupees 10,000. Afte...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Representing South Eastern Railway Vs. Amarendra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal119
Laik, J.1. Summarily stated, the circumstances within a small compass, necessary for the decision of this First Appeal are: The plaintiff Respondent, whom I would hereafter refer to as Sarkara, joined the Bengal Nagpur Railway in June, 1928 then, a Company-managed Railway, in its 'Cash and Pay Branch', which was taken over by the Government of India in or about the year 1944 On July 24. 1948. Sarkara was promoted to the post of Chief Cashier. The Railway changed its name to Eastern Railway-in or about the year 1952, which was again changed to South Eastern Railway in or about the year 1955, which is still current.2. Mani Pramanik, one of the pay clerks in the Cash and Pay Section was in charge of making payments of provident fund to the retired Railway servants and compensation monies to the creditors of the Railways by money orders, prior to and during the relevant period. In December, 1948 Sarkara as Chief Cashier, received the complaint of delay in payment to an outside creditor by ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Lucky Glass Works (Plaintiff) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1969Cal11,72CWN795
ORDERP. Chatterjee, J.1. The short question involved in these proceedings is whether the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code need be served upon the State of Jammu and Kashmir if a suit is instituted against that State in Calcutta.2. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows:'No suit shall be instituted against the Government, or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of (c) in the case of a State against a State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the District.'The question is whether the territory of Jammu and Kashmir is a State and whether that State is a State Government within the meaning of Section 80(c). I have been referred to Article 1 of the Constitution which refers to the State in India and Article 1(2) is as follows:'The States and ...
Tag this Judgment!Charandas Malhotra Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal376,1968CriLJ33
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioner carries on business as a dealer in watches, clocks, time-pieces, etc., under the trade name, 'Wallton Watch Company', at No. 12 Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. On March 19, 1963, there was a search of the business premises of the petitioner conducted by the Rummaging Staff of the Customs Department. In course of the search 218 pieces of foreign made watches were found in the premises, but, on scrutiny of whatever documents the petitioner could produce at that time, 87 watches were released and 131 watches were included in a seizure list and were seized. Towards the end of the search the petitioner made the following statement, which was recorded by an officer of the Customs Department:'I, Sri Charan Das Malhotra son of late Harbhas Rai Malhotra do hereby state that I have produced all the watches to you in my possession. I do not have any watches anywhere else for production to you. I have produced bills against some of the watches for your inspecti...
Tag this Judgment!Kshitish Chandra Shome and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal114
ORDERA.K. Das, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge Burdwan dismissing the petitioners' appeal against conviction by a learned Magistrate, Katwa. 2. The facts of the case may be statedas follows : Complainant's case is that one Mir Akkel Hus-sain, D. W. 3 grew sugarcane as bhagidar of Dharmadas Roy on c. s. plot No. 594 under khatian No. 60. of Mouza Brahmadanga within Kelugram Police Station. The total area of the plot is .68 decimals, out of which 1' decimals in the north-west was purchased by the complainant by a registered kobala, Ext. 1 from one Dharmdas Roy, P. W. 2 with the standing sugar-cane. The complaint related to cutting and removal of the sugarcane on the 22nd Pous, 1369 B. S. by the accused persons under orders of accused Kshitish Shome. The learned Magistrate convicted accused Kshitish Shome under section 379/109 and the other accused persons under Section 379 and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 75, in d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »