Kolkata Court February 1967 Judgments
Sukumar Guha Vs. Naresh Chandra Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal49
Amaresh Roy, J.1. This second appeal is by the tenant - defendant and arises out of a suit for ejectment from the premises in which the defendant is a tenant. Eviction was prayed for by the plaintiffs on the ground of reasonable requirement both for their own use and occupation and also for purposes of building and rebuilding including substantial additions and alterations under Section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The suit was instituted by the two plaintiffs, the two brothers, who are the owners of the premises. The sole defendant contested the suit not only on the merits but also by contending that the notice terminating the tenancy had not been properly served. Both the courts have held in favour of the plaintiffs and a decree for eviction has been passed against the defendant. Against the judgment and decree passed in the appellate court the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.2. The suit premises No. 28/10C Nakuleswar Bhattacharjee...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range Charge a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC345(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. In this appeal from a judgment of Sinha, J., as he then was, the principal point involved is the meaning of inter-State trade or commerce. The appellant is a manufacturer and supplier of aluminium utensils. It has its registered office in Calcutta. It submitted tenders for the supply of aluminium utensils to the Government of India in its Directorate of Supplies and Disposals required for military purposes. The tenders were made to the Director of Supplies and Disposals, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply at 6, Esplanade East, Calcutta. The schedule to the acceptance of tender contained, inter alia, the following particulars :-1. Name and address of the Messrs Jeewanlal (1929) Limit-contractor ... ed, 31, Netaji Subhas Road,Calcutta.3. Name of indentor ... C. 0. D. Kanpur.7. Conditions of contract as W.S.B. 133 as amended to date.contained in Form No. ...8. The indenting department Government/Central/Military/is ... Commercial.10. Place of delivery ... Free...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1967
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas593(Cal),[1967]65ITR568(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, made under circumstances hereinafter stated.2. The respondent-assessee is a company limited by shares. In the assessment year 1948-49, the assessee revalued its assets and enhanced the existing book value thereof by Rs. 1,45,00,000, which was credited to the capital reserve account. The revaluation was made with the object of issuing bonus shares; but apparently the assessee could not obtain permission to issue such shares. The result was that the object with which the revaluation of assets was made by the asses see-company remained unfulfilled.3. In the assessment year 1957-58, the Wealth-tax Officer proceeded to value the assets of the assessee under Section 7(2) of the Wealth-tax Act and took the value of the assets at Rs. 5,01,40,897, as shown in the balance-sheet on the relevant valuation date, namely, March 31, 1957. The assessee objected to the method of valuation and claimed that the sum of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kabiraj Srinarayan Sarma Vs. Baijnath Bhartia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal56
Arun K. Mukherjea, J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment and order dated 30th April, 1960, of the 5th Bench of the City Civil Court by which a decree of ejectment was passed against the defendant.2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of one shop room on the ground floor of premises No. 244, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. The tenancy was according to the English calendar month. By an order the 10th August, 1957 the Third Judge of the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta fixed the standard rent of the premises in suit at Rs. 39/9/-per month from July, 1949 upto March, 1952 and at Rs. 39/11/- (i. e. Rs. 39. 69 nP) with effect from the ,1st April 1952. According to the plaintiff, the defendant continued to pay rent for the months of July, August, September and October, 1957 at the rate of Rs. 38.50 nP. though before the dates of deposits of these rents the rent had been standardised at a higher rate. It was only o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Sudhir Chatterjee and Co. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1967
Reported in: [1967]65ITR152(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This reference, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, has been made in circumstances hereinafter stated in brief.The assessee, being a private limited company, it is common ground that in the assessee-company the public are not substantially interested and, as such, the provision of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act apply to the assessee-company.The assessment year, which is relevant for the purpose of this reference, is the year 1954-55 corresponding to the financial year ending with March 31, 1954.The assessment for the year 1954-55 was computed on a total income of Rs. 73,451, after having set of the losses brought forward from the preceding year. The tax payable on the total income, as assessed, amounted to Rs. 31,905. On the aforesaid calculation, the distributable surplus came up to Rs. 41,546. The divided declared by the assessee-company, at its annual general meeting held on December 24, 1954, was however, Rs. 12,000 only, which was below 60 per...
Tag this Judgment!Campbell and Another Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1967
Reported in: [1969]71ITR226(Cal)
HARMAN L.J. There are occasions, even in revenue cases, when what one comes to look for is substance and not form. Here were corporators owning a first-class educational business which paid 800 per cent. on its ordinary shares and made a living also for the majority shareholders. It paid tax, of course, like any other commercial concern. The object of the corporators was to sell this business at is full value without losing control of it. They left it to their accountant to find the best means, and what we have is his plan, which smells a little of the lamp. His plan was (1) to sell the goodwill to a concern still controlled by the vendors; (2) to find the price out of the profits of the business; (3) to get back the income tax which was being paid by the vendors, thus accelerating the payment of the purchase-money.What were the steps taken to carry it out The first was that a trust was set up, a trust for educational purposes only, and, therefore, a charitable trust, but as its name i...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Superintendent, Customs, Preventive, West Bengal Vs. Sitaram Na ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal274,1968CriLJ744
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J. 1. These two matters were heard together as the same question of law is involved in both of them. In the case out of which arises Criminal Revision Case No. 987 of 1965 certain categories of goods including mostly ball bearing and steel files of foreign origin, which were believed to be smuggled property, were seized by the police from the custody of opposite party No. 1. In the case out of which Criminal Revision Case No. 988 of 1965 has arisen the police seized a lorry loaded with bundles of cinnamon and cloves of foreign origin from the custody of opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The opposite party No. 1 was the driver of the lorry and opposite party No. 5 in that case was the owner thereof. The seizure in both the cases were made by the police under Sections 54 Cr. P. C./411 I. P. C. While the case was pending for investigation by the police the Customs authorities made an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate praying for a direction on the Invetiga...
Tag this Judgment!Kiran Bala Saha Vs. Bankim Chandra Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Cal603
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. This is a suit by Kiran Bala Saha againsl her husband Bankim Chandra Saha a professor in the department of Economics and Civics. St. Paul's College, Calcutta, for maintenance at Rs. 200 a month, for arrears thereof amounting to Rs. 4,000 from October 20, 1962 to June 20, 1954, and for recovery of gold ornaments, weighing 48 tolas, as set out in schedule A to the plaint, in the alternative, for a decree of Rs. 4,000 being the value of the ornaments aforesaid.2. The plaint of a suit as this was presented and admitted on June 23. 1954.3. Both Kiran Bala and Bankim Chandra are Hindus governed by the Davabhaga School of Hindu law. And they were lawfully married in or about Baisakh 1332 B. S. corresponding to April-May 1926. Some 9 or 10 years later, however, thai is to say, in 1341 B. S. corresponding to 1934-86, Bankim Chandra married for the second time. Such are the averments in paragraphs 2 and 1 of the plaint--averments which. Bankim Chandra savs in paragraph 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Mukherjee Vs. Secretary and Treasurer, S.B.i. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal59,(1969)ILLJ50Cal
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Head Office of the Imperial Bank in March, 1948. Under Section 7 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, the petitioner's services were transferred from the Imperial Bank to the State Bank of India, and in 1961 he was transferred to the Dinhata Pay-Office in the district of Coochbehar. On the 18th December, 1961, he was suspended and on the 19th February, 1962, he was served with a notice to show cause on several charges. There was a departmental inquiry held on the charges on the 13th July, 1962, and on the 5th November, 1962, he was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was eventually passed on the 31st December. 1962, under the terms of para 521 (5) (a) of the 'Shastri Award', and it is to challenge the validity of that order (Ann. A. p. 9(a) of the petition) that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been brought oh the following grounds:(1) Tha...
Tag this Judgment!Jatirdra Nath Sikdar and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1967
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1716
T.P. Mokherji, J.1. The second party to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C., obtained this rule against the order passed by the Magistrate in the proceeding and it is the propriety of the order that has been challenged before me. On November 26, 1966, the opposite parties to the present rule applied to the Subdivisional Magistrate, Ranaghat, for an order under Section 144 of the-Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate sent the petition to the police for enquiry and report, and on receipt of the report, he drew up proceedings under Section 144 on December 1, 1966 against the present petitioners restraining them from entering on the land and directing them to show cause on 4th of January, 1967.2. On December 2, 1968, the first party filed a petition which was ordered to be put up on December 13, following for hearing. On the date, the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties converted the proceeding under Section 144 of the Code into one under Section 145. By the same ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »