Kolkata Court August 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.
Arun Ranjan Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ289Cal
D. Basu, J.1. Though the affidavits on either side, in this case, are longish documents, the real issue between the parties is one of interpretation of certain rules relating to the Indian Police Service, which has to be determined with reference to certain landmarks in the career of the petitioner, which are substantially admitted.2. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army as a Second Lieutenant on 12 April 1942, and promoted to the rank of Major In April 1945.3. On 10 January 1949, the services of the petitioner were lent by the Defence Department of the Government of India to the Province of West Bengal, to cope with the unusual situation arising out of the partition of India and the petitioner was posted as a Commandant in the Special Armed Police Battalion of West Bengal, which post was acknowledged by the Government of West Bengal as ' a senior scale Indian Police Service post, which may temporarily be held by an Army officer of the rank of a Major ...' (annexure B to ...
Makhan Lal Ghose Vs. the Mahaluxmi Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal90
Chatterjee, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure refusing to set aside a sale in execution of a decree for mortgage. The sale took place as early as 23-4-56 and the present petition under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code was filed on 28-1-61. Evidently the petitioner did not come within the period oflimitation but could have come if the petitioner could make out a case under Section 18 of the Limitation Act of 1908 and so far as that is concerned the case was in the petition as follows :--'That no summons was served upon you petitioner in the mortgage suit and indeed your petitioner was kept in the dark about all proceedings until as stated before he received a notice in the Misc. Case No. 68 of 1959 of this Court ......'2. The trial court heard the petition under Order 21, Rule 90 C. P. C. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced by both parties. The trial court came to the finding that opposite party No. 1 namely the decree-holder...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Birla Bros. (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal530
P.B. Mukheji, J. 1. In this Income-tax Reference the main question is:'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 5,60,199 was an admissible deduction in computing the business profits of the assessee.' 2. That was the question which the Tribunal at first referred to the High Court. This Court, however, asked for a further statement on the following questions:-- '1 Whether there is any evidence in support of the Tribunal's finding that the assessee company has stood guarantee for the loan given to Messrs U.P Sales Corporation Ltd. by the Gwalior Industrial Bank Ltd. 2. If the answer to Q. 1 above be in the affirmative then whether there is any evidence to show that the assessee company stood such guarantee in the ordinary course of its business. 3. If the answer either to Q. 1 or Q 2 above be in the negative then whether the sum of Rs. 5,60,199 was allowable as a deduction in computing profits of the assessee.' 3. To appreciate the points of law and the ...
Aswini Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ116
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J.1. This rule is directed against the conviction of the two petitioners under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 50/- each in default rigorous imprisonment for three weeks passed on them thereunder. The two petitioners were also convicted under Section 426/109, Indian Penal Code and under Section 426, Indian Penal Code respectively and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/. each in default to rigorous imprisonment for three weeks. C.S. plot No. 4043 of mouza Kasba belongs to the mother of P.W. 1 - the informant in the case. The prosecution case is that on March 2, 1963 petitioner No. 1 with the help of petitioner No. 2 and some other persons dug earth from that plot causing damage to the land to the extent of RS. 2,000/.2. The defence was a denial that any earth was cut or removed from the land in question and a second string of the defence was that there was a contract for sale of the land by P.W. 1's mother to petitioner No. 1 an...
Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ( ... Overruled
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal19,[1968]67ITR56(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. In this Income-taxReference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Tribunal referred the following question for determination by this Court.'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs 1,49,776 which was claimed by the assessee as a deduction on account of sales-tax was deductible as a business expense?'2. The facts giving rise to this ques-tion may be set out briefly. The assessee is the Kedarnath Jute . of 13 Syed Sally Lane. Calcutta. It is a public limited company doing business in jute and jute goods manufacturing. The relevant previous year ended on the 31st December 1954. It followed the mercantile system of accounting. For the assessment year the assessee revised his return by claiming a reduction of Rs 1,49,776 on account of sales tax determined to he payable on the sales account during the relevant accounting year 2-A. The assessee's total sales during the year amounted to Rs 71,01,566 The assesses disclosed a tot...
Bisweswar Bajpai and ors. Vs. Jajneswar Bajpai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal213,70CWN1095
P.N. Mookerjee, A.C.J.1. This ap-peal is by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for partition which was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on the finding, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had no title to the disputed properties.2. The material facts lie within a short compass and they are as follows:3. According to the plaintiffs, they, alone with their father, who is defendant No. 1, belonged to a Mitakshara Hindu family and the disputed properties were properties of the said family in which they were interested as coparceners. Defendant No. 2, who was the real contesting defendant in the court below and who is the contesting respondent in this Court, obtained a mortgage of the disputed properties from the father, Jajneswar Bajpai. defendant No. 1, on 28th April, 1934 The mortgage was given by Jajneswar Bajpai alone. It was for an amount of Rs. 2,500.4. Eventually, on that mortgage, a suit was brought by the mortgagee, defendant No. 2, and the same was decreed in a preliminary...
Abdul Majeed Qureshi Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal174
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J.1. The petitioner in this application seeks appropriate writs and orders directing the respondents, their servants and agents not to demand the licence fee from the petitioner who is a purchaser of guts and entrails from the municipal slaughter house of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner is an exporter of guts, to various foreign countries, and for the purpose of his business he purchases from the licensed butchers of the municipal slaughter house offals, entrails and guts. After purchase of the materials thepetitioner claims to process such materials at is factory, and for this purpose he holds a trade licence from the respondent No. 1. The petitioner's case is that the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Bye-laws framed under Section 527(46) of the Act do not make any provision for imposing on, or realising from, the petitioner any licence fee as the buyer of guts and offals. The petitioner's contention is that he is a purch...
Ram Prosad Mondal Vs. Sm. Snehalata Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal369,71CWN17
P.N. Mookerjee, A.C.J. 1. This appeal is by the defendant and it arises out of a suitfor permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering into any portion of premises No. 101, Baithakhana Road, Calcutta, and from creating any disturbance or obstruction by the plaintiff in constructing her house there.2. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit land originally as a co-owner to the extent of a moiety share, and, thereafter, by a partition, exclusive ownership.3. According to the plaint, the defendant was a trespasser, and, upon that footing, the above relief of permanent injunction was prayed for against the defendant.4. The defence was a denial of the plaintiff's exclusive title to the suit land, and a denial that there had been any valid partition between the plaintiff and her original co-owner sister Hiron Bala Mitra. The defence, further, was that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the disputed property, and, accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief ...
Calcutta National Bank Ltd. Vs. Rangaroon Tea Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal294
ORDERS.P. Mitra, J.1. The plaintiff is a Bank in liquidation. In the plaint it is alleged that on the 30th August, 1944, the plaintiff lent and advanced Rs. 2,75,000 to Ranjit Bose, the Original Defendant No. 2 with interest at 6 per cent per annum with half yearly rests. This rate of interest was subsequently increased to 7 per cent with effect from the 1st January, 3947. Ranjit Bose deposited with the plaintiff, to secure the repayment of the loan, documents of title belonging to the Rangaroon Tea Estate, in Darjee-ling. A registered memorandum of agreement was also entered into between the plaintiff and Ranjit Bose on the 30th August. 1944, evidencing the deposit of Title Deeds.2. The plaintiff then alleges that as further security for the advance Ranjit Bose on the 30th August 1944, charged and hypothecated by way of first charge in favour of the plaintiff certain plants, machinery, furniture and other movables appertaining to the Rangaroon Tea Estate. Ranjit Bose on the 30th Augus...
State of West Bengal Vs. Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC319(Cal)
G.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is an appeal from an order under Article 226 of the Constitution making absolute a rule issued at the instance of the first respondent for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing a notice under Section 11(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and all proceedings thereunder together with a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State of West Bengal and its Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Charge, not to give effect to the said notice.2. The petition to this Court which was affirmed on 5th September, 1955, was amended twice, first by an order dated 29th May, 1957, and again by another order dated 11th January, 1962. In the petition as originally presented the material averments were as follows:-(1) The petitioner carried on business in the production and distribution of iron rods, galvanised iron wires etc. Its workshop and factory were situated at Indranagar, District Singhbhum in Bihar. The management and control of its business including sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »