Kolkata Court March 1967 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.
In Re: K.K. Ray (Private) Ltd. (In the Matter of FranklIn Square Agenc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1967
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas737(Cal)
1. This is an important point of procedure which requires to be settled by this court. The point arises in this way :2. This is an application for winding up intended to be presented in the department of this court by the solicitors, Messrs. Orr, Dignam & Co., who are representing petitioners, Franklin Square Agency Inc., an American company.3. This petition for winding up was signed by one Michael Michaelson, President and Principal Officer of Franklin Square Agency Inc. and verified by two affidavits sworn before a Notary Public, Elizabeth Levy of New York, U.S.A., authorised to administer oath by laws of the State of New York, U.S.A.4. Such notarial act of Elizabeth Levy has also been certified by the County Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County, a court of record under its seal. This certificate has been annexed to the affidavits verifying the petition. This has been forwarded under the certificate of the Consulate General of India in New York for legalising the sea...
In Re: K.K. Ray (Private) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Cal636,71CWN430
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an important point of procedure which requires to be settled by this Court. The point arises in this way.2. This is an application for winding up intended to be presented in the Department of this Court by the Solicitors Messrs Orr, Dignam and Co., who are representing petitioners Franklin Square Agency Inc. an American Company.3. This petition for winding up was signed by one Michael Michaelson, President and Principal Officer of Franklin Spare Agency Inc., and verified by two affidavits sworn before a Notary Public Elizabeth Levy of New York. U. S. A. authorised to administer oath by laws of the State of New York. U. S. A.4. Such notarial act of Elizabeth Levy has also been certified by the County Clerk and Clerk of the Supreme Court, New York County, a court of record under its seal. This certificate has been annexed to the affidavits verifying the petition. This has been forwarded under the certificate of the Consulate General of India in New York f...
Nandalal Pal and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1967
Reported in: 1970CriLJ792
ORDERT.P. Mukherji, J.1. This Rule is directed against the conviction of the petitioners under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year passed on them thereunder. The subject-matter of the prosecution was mustard oil which on chemical analysis was found to be adulterated being mixed with linseed oil.2. Mr. Talukdar appearing in support of the Rule takes amongst others two major objections to the finding of the Courts below and these are, first, that there is nothing on record to connect the report of the chemical analyst with the sample of oil that was seized from the shop of the petitioner and secondly that all the prescribed tests not having been undertaken in this case, the analysis that was done was not in accordance with the requirements of the law and the analyst not having been examined in the case, the Courts below fell into an error in basing the conviction on that report ...
Ramric Lal Saha Vs. Sachindra Narayan Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal316
A.C. Sen, J. 1. This is an application under Article 133 of the Constitution for a Certificate in respect of the decree of a Division Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 819 of 1955 dated July 28, 1966 reversing the decree of the lower appellate court arising out of Title Suit No. 530 of 1956 of the Second Court of Munsif at Ali-pore.2. On or about December 23, 1953. one Purnendu Narayan Roy Deb Barman, since deceased predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 1 along with the respondent No. 2, instituted in the First Court of the Munsif at Alipore a suit for eviction of the petitioner from flat No. 2 on the around floor of premises No. 136B Rash Behari Avenue, Ballygunge, Calcutta. The said suit on transfer to the second Court of the Munsif at Alipore was renumbered as Title Suit No. 520 of 1956. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif on December 20, 1957.3. Against the said decree the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge of 24 Parganas at Alipo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR799(Cal)
K.L. ROY J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The assessment is the Calcutta Tramways Company Limited and the assessment year concerned in this reference is 1958-59, the corresponding accounting year being the calendar year ending 31st December, 1957. During the accounting year the assessee-company installed new bodies on the old chassis of its tram cars which it plies in the City of Calcutta. Over and above the normal depreciation, additional depreciation and development rebate under section 10(2)(via) and 10(2)(vib) of the Act were claimed in respect of the cost thereof. The Income-tax Officer allowed only normal depreciation taking the entire tram car plus the chassis as one unit and disallowed the claims for additional depreciation development rebate. On appeal against the order of assessment by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim for additional depreciation but disallow...
Western Engineering Co. Vs. Paul Engineering Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal109
ORDERS.A. Masud, J.1. This is an application under Section 51-A of the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II), 1911, in which the petitioner has prayed for an order that the Design No. 127199 in respect of a Cycle lock registered in the name of the respondent on October 10, 1965 be revoked and/or cancelled.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and carries on its business at No. 9206, Nawabgunge Library Road, Delhi 6. The said firm is the proprietor of a design duly registered under the said Act as Design No. 125728 of May 25, 1965. The said design was and is in respect of locks for cycle and the novelty or the originality was in respect of the shape and configuration of the design of the said locks for cycle as illustrated in the annexure to the certificate of the Controller of Patents and Designs dated May 25, 1965 which are annexed to the petition and collectively marked 'A'. After such registration, the petitioner has been manufacturing commercially the said cycle lock and...
Adelaide Mande Tobias Vs. William Albert Tobias
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal133,71CWN605
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a wife's petition for divorce on the ground of 'adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for 2 years or upwards'.2. The wife Adelaide Mande Tobias states in the petition the following facts. She was married on May 15. 1935 to the Respondent William Albert Tobias at the Church of the Secred Heart of No. 3 Dha-ramtala Street, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Marriage Certificate has been proved and marked as Ext. A in this suit. Both the wife and the husband are domiciled In India and are Roman Catholic Christians.3. After marriage they lived and cohabited at 25 Dharamtalla Street and also at 9 Crooked Lane, Calcutta, both within the jurisdiction of this Court. There are three issues of the marriage now living: one is John Andrey Tobias, daughter born on March 20, 1936; Daphne Tobias, daughter born on August 26, 1938; and Harold Tobias, son born on April 26, 1940. It was immediately after the birth of the son that the r...
Radhashyam De Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1967
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1046
ORDERA.K. Das, J.1. This revisional application is directed against a complaint lodged by a Magistrate of Vishnupur under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The facts are as follows:3. On 10th February 1965 a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, was instituted in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Vishnupur. The first party claimed that he purchased the disputed lands of Chaitanya and Radheshyam by a kobala dated 22nd December 1964 and the remainder share of Amulya from the heirs of Amulya by another kobala dated 2nd January 1965. The second party did not admit the execution of the kobalas. They claimed that Radheshyam, son of Ram Charan, inherited sixteen annas share of the property from his grandfather, Makhan Lal De and this Radheshyam settled the land on 16th April 1962 to Dhanraj by virtue of an unregistered amalnama and Dhanraj produced two pieces of paper purported to be receipts for rent and salami granted by Radheshyam. The learned Magistr...
Sri Sitanath Mukherjee Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR53(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This reference, under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, has been made in circumstances hereinafter stated.One Bhupendra Nath Mukherjee died intestate on December 27, 1955. During his life, on June 16, 1916, Bhupendra executed a deed of gift, in the Bengali language, in favour of his eldest son, Panchanan Mukhopadhyaya. The English translation of the material portion of the deed reads as follows :'You are my eldest son and by virtue of succession after my death you are entitled to have a share of all those movable and immovable properties in which I have right, title, and interest and possession. With a view to preventing troubles, quarrels and litigations and also for avoiding various difficulties amongst my sons regarding settlement and preservation of the joint properties after my death, before demarcating to each of my heirs all the movable and immovable properties separately through a will or by deeds of settlement I desire to demarcate and give to you the two of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal Vs. Sudhir Kumar Sen. (Decease ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR135(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - By an order under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, this court called upon the Appellate Tribunal to send a statement of case on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount included as dividend in the total income of the assessee in consequence of an order under section 23A in the case of Messrs. S. K. Sen & Sons Ltd. should be excluded on the ground that the assessee was not the registered shareholder ?'The question of law arises in the circumstances hereinafter stated. There was a firm known as Messrs. Sen and Pundit. The assessee Sudhir Kumar Sen, was, at one time, a partner of the said firm. The firm above named was a shareholder of a limited company known as Messrs. S. K. Sen and Sons Limited. On or about September 26, 1951, the firm known as Messrs. Sen and Pandit was dissolved and its assets and liabilities were taken over by a private limited company named...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »