Kolkata Court September 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Lal Chand and Sons and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal310
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J. 1. Messrs Lal Chand and Sons and Sree Saraswaty Press Ltd., printers both, printed various forms, in execution of orders to that end by the Government of India, which had supplied the necessary materials for printing. Orders executed, Messrs Lal Chand and Sons submitted their bills, for the jobs done, between March 26, 1942, and February 26, 1943, for Rs. 64,324 - 4 as. - 4 pies, Rs. 14,229 - 2 as. - 1 pie, and Rs. 33,997 - 9 as. - 2 pies ________________________________totalling Rs. 1,12,550 - 15 as. - 7 pies.Sree Saraswaly Press Ltd. also submitted their bills, for the jobs done, between April 11, 1942, and March 10. 1943. Payment was made in full on the bills submitted by both. 2. Therefore. Messrs Lal Chand and Sons submitted three bills dated March 15, 1943, for Rs. 1,005 - 1 anna, Rs. 222 - 5 as. - 3 pies, and Rs. 531 - 3 as. - 6 pies, ------------------ totalling Rs. 1.758 - 9 as. - 9 pies, by way of sales-tax on the amount billed for and paid. So di...
Mannalal Khatic Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal478
Bagchi, J. 1. The accused-appellant Mannalal Khatic stood a trial, charged with two counts of distinct offence, viz. under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed murder of Gulab, and under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused hurt to Dayaram with a sharp-cutting weapon, at tie Third Criminal Sessions of 1963 in me Original Criminal Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. P. Mukherjee and a Special Jury. Of the nine jurors, six found Mannalal Khatic, the accused-appellant guilty on the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering Gulab and seven founds Mannalal Khatic, the accused-appellant guilty for having caused hurt to Dayaram with a sharp-cutting weapon. The learned Judge agreeing with and accepting the majority verdict of the Jury on both the charges against the accused-appellant Mannalal Khatic, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous impris...
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Calcutta Vs. Karamchand Thapar an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: [1968]67ITR705(Cal)
P. B. MUKHARJI J. - The question for determination in this Income-tax reference is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 18 lakhs paid to Messrs. Karamchand Thapar & Brothers (Private) Ltd., was a revenue receipt and as such assessable to Income-tax ?'It raises the proverbial question of the nature, character and legal incidents of a managing agency and whether a termination of such managing agency forms capital receipt or revenue receipt. Mr. Palkhivala for the assessee has contended that this is capital receipt, relying on the well known cases which support the view that in some cases termination of a managing agency leading to compensation is capital receipt. Mr. A. C. Mitra, the learned standing counsel for the revenue authorities, equally relied on the other line of cases where it has been said that such compensation arising out of the termination of managing agency can be, and is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a revenue receipt. ...
Asiatic Society Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ318Cal
B.C. Mitra, J.1. In this application the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing an order dated 28 June 1964, and also for an order prohibiting the respondents from implementing the said order dated 28 Juno 1964. There is a further prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus relating to the same order.2. The petitioner in this case is the Asiatic Society, which was registered as a society, under the Registration Act, 21 of 1860. The objects, functions and activities of the society have been set out in the rules and regulations of the society. The objects of the society as specified in the words of its founder, Sir William Jones, are:The bounds of Its investigation will be the geographical limits of Asia, and within these limits its inquiries will be 'extended to whatever IB performed by man. or produced by nature.3. There are various regulations relating to the activities of the society, namely, regulations regarding guidance of research fellows of the society,...
Kartick Chandra Saha Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal127,1968CriLJ311
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J. 1. The petitioner who is an accused in a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 obtained this Rule against the order of the Magistrate forwarding the records of the case under the provisions of Section 12A(4) of the Act to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for transferring the same to a competent court. The offence alleged in the case is stated to have been committed on July 26 1964. A charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on September 7. 1964. 2. The Essential Commodities Act 10 of 1955 was amended on November 5, 1964 by Act 47 of the year by insertion of Section 12A which authorises the Central Government by notification to specify an order under Section 3 of the Act in relation to any essential commodity and directing violation of such an order to be tried summarily. In accordance with this provision the Central Government issued a notification dated December 4, 1964 which was published in the official gazette on December 24. 196...
Chandi Kumar Sarkar Vs. Probhat Kumar Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal216,1968CriLJ600
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J.1. The petitioner who was the first party in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P C. obtained this Rule against the learned Magistrate's order passed under Section 146 (IB) of the Code declaring the opposite party to he entitled to possession of the land concerned and restraining the first party from disturbing such possession except in due course of law.2. On January 7, 1964, the first party applied to the sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barrackpore under Section 144 Cr. P C. The application was sent to the police for enquiry and report and on receipt of the police report the learned Magistrate on being satisfied that there is a dispute concerning land which is likely to cause a breach of peace drew up proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. That was on February 17, 1964. After the parties had filed written statements, documents and affidavits the learned Magistrate considered the matter and came to the finding that he was unable to decide as to which of the parti...
Harendra Nath Chatterjee Vs. Sailendra Krishna Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal185
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J. 1. By this rule, obtained on March 21, 1961, under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 5 of 1908, the tenant defendant seeks reversal of an order dated February 7, 1961, of a learned Judge, City Civil Court, striking out his defence against delivery of possession under Section 17. Sub-section (3), of the W. B. Premises Tenancy Act 12 of 1956 (hereafter shortened into 'the Act') in the following circumstances:The petitioner was a tenant, under the opposite party, of 4 Pashupati Bose Lane in the town or Calcutta, on a rent of Rs. 80 a month, payable according to the Bengali calendar. A contractual tenancy as this was put an end, to on the expiry of the last moment of the last day of Bhadra 1366 B.S. (corresponding to September 17, 1959) by the requisite notice to quit. And only eight days later, to wit, on September 25, 1959, the opposite party raised the action in ejectment (out of which this rule arises), on the ground of reasonable requirement of the pre...
Rama Guha and Ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'C' Ward and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal348
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J.1. The short question involved in this application in it a notice issued under Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is valid.2. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were partners of a firm known as Calcutta General Stores (petitioner No. 3). The said firm's business consisted, inter alia, in supplying stores and materials to tea gardens at Jalpaiguri, These supplies were effected from Calcutta and it is alleged that the firm did not carry on any business at Jalpaiguri. It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 3 carried on its business up to March 1960, and thereafter no business was carried on by fee petitioner No. 8 and therefore it was dissolved.3. For the assessment years 1959-80 and 1960-61 the petitioner No. 8 filed returns under Section 22(2) of the Act at Jalpaiguri, and was duly assessed to tax, and the amount of the tax was also paid.4. Two notices were issued under Section 34 of the Act to the partners of the petit...
Abdul Hamid and ors. Vs. Durga Charan Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Cal116
ORDERB. Mukherji, J.1. If two of the five appellants die during the pendency of their appeal arising out of a suit instituted by them for recovery of Khas possession of a certain plot of land, reckoning the sole defendant as a trespasser thereon, and if the appeal against the two dead appellants abates, no steps having been taken for substitution of their legal representatives, will the appeal as a whole abate? That is the main question debated in this revisional application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 5 of 1908 at the instance of the three surviving plaintiffs appellants. The learned Subordinate Judge, seized of such appeal, holds, the appeal as a whole abates. Mr Bijan Behari Das Gupta, appearing for the appellants petitioners, submits, it does not. Mr. Jnanendra Nath Bakshi, appearing for the respondent opposite party, contends for the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge.2. The facts which have led up to this revisional petition need not be referred to furt...
Rameshwar Dubey Vs. Jogindra Lal Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Cal234
ORDERP. Chatterjee, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution as well as under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the Chief Judge. Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta rejecting an application for injunction. The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judge disputing the validity of an election of n Councillor under the Calcutta Municipal Act. 1951 The petitioner filed also an application for injunction restraining the opposite party No. 2 from exercising the function of the Councillor of the Calcutta Corporation on the ground mentioned therein. This application for injunction was rejected by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta on the ground that he had no authority to issue an injunction.2. Mr. Dutta, who appears on behalf of the petitioner says that the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court by virtue of Sections 73 and 74 of the Calcutta Municipal Act is an election court and because it is an election court, therefore, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »