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.
Triloknath Lall and anr. Vs. Malati Bibi Khetry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal145,1967CriLJ342
B. Mukherji, J.1. The two petitioners before me, Trilok Nath Lall and Kedar Nath Lall, are the tenants of 73 Tarak Pramanik Road on a rent of Rs. 140 a month. For November and December 1958, they deposited Rs. 280 with the controller on the allegation that their landlord, then one Radhakrishna Khattray, had not accepted the rent, though tendered. An allegation as this was accompanied by an application and supported by an affidavit, as it had to be under Section 21, Sub-section 8, of the Premises Tenancy Act, 12 of 1956. Such deposit was made and affidavit sworn on or about January 17, 1959. The landlord received the notice of the deposit on February 9, 1959, and applied under Sub-section 5 of Section 21 for withdrawal of the same. He did a little more too. At the time of so applying for withdrawal, he complained to the controller as under:'The petitioners have been in arrears of rent from March 1958. Their tenancy was, therefore, determined by a notice dated November 17, 1958, asking t...
Binani Properties Private Ltd. Vs. M. Gulamali Abdul HossaIn and Co. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal390
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd edn., p. 2309, 2. Dictionary of English Law by Earl Jowitt, p. 48, 3. Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar, : [1953]4SCR533 , 4. Commissioner for Special Purposes of Income-Tax v. Pemsel, (1891)AC 531. 5. Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes. 10th edn. p. 321, 6. R. v. East Ardsley (Inhabitants), (1850) 14 QB 793, at p. 801, 7. Fisher v Val de Travers Asphalte Co., (1876) 1 CPD 259, (serials 6 and 7 cited by Craies on Statute Law, 6th edn., p. 106). 8. Babulal Dhandhania v. Gauttam and Co., : AIR1950Cal391 , 9. Meghraj Sampatlall v. Raghunath and Sons, : AIR1955Cal278 , 10. Suraya Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Bimalendu Nath Sarkar. : AIR1964Cal1 . Referred to.]2. Say, 'suit' is distinct from 'proceeding'. Still the notice here is too good a compliance with Section 13 (6), which does not say: 'unless the landlord has given to the tenant one month's notice expiring with a month of the tenancy, and specifying whether he will file ...
Administrator, Hindusthan Cables Employees Co-operative Multipurpose S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal146
Sinha, C.J.1. The facts in this case art shortly as follows: The respondent Jatindra Kumar Das Choudhury was employed by the Hindustan Cables Ltd. of Rupnara-yanpur, Burdwan (hereinafter referred to as 'company'). Sometime in 1956 the employees of the company started a multipurpose co-operative society known as the Hindustan Cables Employee's Co-operative Society Ltd which was registered under the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'society'). The said respondent was appointed the Secretary of the said Society from its very inception The statutory auditor employed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal, took the audit of the said Society for the year 1960-61 and made his report dated the 26th of March 1963 On the basis of the said audit report, the Registrar dissolved the Managing Committee of the Society on the ground of mismanagement and appointed an administrator who was the Managing Direc-tor of the company. On or about the 6th of March 1963...
Ganga Metal Refining Co. Pte. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1966
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas117(Cal),[1968]67ITR771(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an Income-tax Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Two questions have been referred to this Court for determination. They are as follows :--'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee was at all entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 11,875 suffered by it on a joint venture against its other income ? (2) If the answer to question (1) be in the affirmative, then whether the assessee was entitled to claim a set off of the whole of the said amount of loss against its profits assessable for the assessment year 1959-60.' 2. The facts giving rise to these two questions must be recorded at the outset. The assessee is Ganga Metal Refining Company (Private) Limited of 43, Strand Road, Calcutta. The status of the assessee is recorded as 'company'. It is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The year of assessment is 1959-60. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,875 as its share of loss in a joint ...
Ganga Metal Refining Co. Pr. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal429
P.B. Mukharji, J 1. This is an Income-tax Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act. Two questions have been referred to this Court for determination. They are as follows :--'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the assessee was at all entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 11,875 suffered by it on a joint venture against its other Income? (2) If the answer to question (1) be in the affirmative, then whether the assessee was entitled to claim a set off of the whole of tide said amount of loss against its profits assessable for the assessment year 1959-60.' 2. The facts giving rise to these two questions must be recorded at the outset. The assessee is Ganga Metal Refining Company (Private) Limited of 43, Strand Road, Calcutta. The status of the assessee is recorded as 'Company'. It is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The year of assessment is 1959-60. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 11,875/- as its share of loss in a Joint...
Awadh Behari Singh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal323,1967CriLJ741
Amaresh Roy, J. 1. This Rule was issued upon a revisional application made on behalf of the petitioner, Awadh Behari Singh, who has been convicted by a Magistrate, 1st Class at Siliguri for an alleged offence under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. That order of conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Jalpaiguri-Darjeeling. 2. The petitioner Awadh Behari Singh, a member of the Indian Army being a Company Commander of the rank of a Naik in the 9th Grenadiers (Mewar). He was arrested in a military compartment while he was travelling by the railways and was produced before the Magistrate at Siliguri on 29th of March, 1962. Allegations against him were that on search of his beddings in the military compartment, a packet containing about eleven seers of contraband opium was found for which he had no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›