Kolkata Court May 1967 Judgments
Punamchand Daga Vs. Subhkaran Dosani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal186,71CWN686
A.K. Mukherjea, J.1. These nine appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th November 1959 and 7th December 1959 respectively passed by the Judge, 3rd Bench City Civil Court, against the defendant-appellant in nine suits The judgment in question really covers ten suits all filed by the plaintiff. Nine of these suits were filed against the same defendant Punamchand Daga and one against Manack-lal Bhutra Punamchand Daga has filed an appeal against the decree of ejectment in all the nine suits in which he was the defendant.2. The facts and circumstances of the use are briefly as follows: Defendant Punamchand Daga was a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of four rooms on the fourth floor and five rooms on the second floor of premises No 36, Shibtola Street. Each of these rooms was held by the defendant under a separate tenancy All the tenancies were running from Sudi 9th to Sudi 8th according to the Vikram Sambat year The rents payable by the defendant in respect of thes...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Debnath and ors. Vs. Mining and Allied Machinery Corporati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal322,72CWN144,(1968)ILLJ643Cal
Sinha, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Banerjee, J. on the 16th February, 1966 by which he rejected the application for a Rule summarily, on the ground that the respondent appeared to be a Government company which is neither the Government nor a statutory body, and so, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The learned Judge relied on his own judgment in Prafulla Kumar Sen v. Calcutta State Transport Corporation, : AIR1963Cal116 and refused to issue a Rule and dismissed the application. Before us, on the 19th of December. 1966 learned Advocate for all parties agreed that it would merely protract matters if we sent the case back to the court below for issuing a rule, but the more desirable course would be to allow the parties to file affidavits and then decide the matter on the merits. This was done, and we have heard the matter on the merits. The facts which have emerged are as follows: In the application, there were three petitioners, who are now the appellants bef...
Tag this Judgment!Rashbehari Dutta and ors. Vs. Panchanan De and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Cal627
ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioners, who were some of the defendants in the instant suit for partition, against an order of the learned trial Judge, allowing the prayer of the opposite parties for sale of the disputed properties under Section 2 of the Partition Act. 2. There is a good deal of controversy on the merits as to the maintainability of the said prayer for sale under Section 2 but the learned trial Judge having allowed the application, the order is, under the terms of Section 8 of the Partition Act, to be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. In that view of the matter, the order would be appealable to the lower appellate court, having regard to the valuation of the Instant suit, and, from the decision of the lower appellate court, there may, be an appeal to this Court. The possibility, therefore, of a second appeal to this Court, more accurately, a second miscellaneous appeal--cannot be ruled out in the instant...
Tag this Judgment!Major General Mahabir Shum Sher Jung Bahadur Rana Vs. Lloyds Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal371,72CWN94
ORDERRay, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendants Lloyds Bank and Indian Airlines Corporation for a declaration that the defendant Lloyds Bank Ltd. has wrongfully debited the plaintiff's current account mentioned in the plaint with the sum of Rs. 1,86,491-3-0, for further declaration that the said sum of Rs. 1,86,491-3-0 is duo and owing by the defendant Lloyds Bunk Ltd. to the plaintiff on the said account and injunction ordering the defendant Lloyds Bank Ltd. to credit the said account of the plaintiff with the said sum of Rs. 1,86,491-3-0 and if necessary a decree for the said sum of Rs. 1,86,491-3-0 with in-terest as against the defendant Lloyds Bank Ltd., or in the alternative, decree for Rs. 1,86,491-3-0 against the second defendant Indian Airlines Corporation.2. The suit was instituted on 19th November, 1956.3. The plaintiff's case in short is that the plaintiff had a current cash credit account with the defendant Lloyds Bank Ltd. The plaintiff was a direc...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Anil Kumar Dutta and ors. Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-29-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC528(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 21 (3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act. The period with which we are concerned is four quarters ending with Chaitra, 1360 B.S. (corresponding to April 13, 1954). In the return filed by the assessee-dealer, a sum of Rs. 15,99,800-1-9 was claimed as deduction from the gross turnover, being sales to registered dealers, under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. The claim for deduction was supported by usual declarations, in the prescribed forms furnished by the purchasing dealers. The Commercial Tax Officer was not satisfied with the declarations covering sales amounting to Rs. 6,94,285-10-0, either because they were not duly filled up or because they were misused or because the purchasing dealers did not appear to him to be genuine dealers, and disallowed the claim to that extent.3. The assessee-dealer preferred an appeal, against the order of ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, West Bengal Vs. Radha Devi Jalan.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR761(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This is a reference under section 6(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.The question of law referred to this court is :'Did the Tribunal, on the facts and in th circumstances of the case, adopt the proper basis for assessment of principal value of premises No. 226/1, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta ?'The circumstances under which the above quoted question comes up for consideration are hereinafter stated in brief : Premises No. 226/1, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta, belonged to one Kamala Prasad Jain, who died on December 21, 1959, leaving a will by which he appointed his wife, Sm. Radha Devi Jalan, as the executrix. In making the return under the Estate Duty Act, the executrix, as the accountable person, showed the value of the said premises at Rs. 1,35,000. This was apparently done on the basis of the annual value of the premises, under the Calcutta Municipal Act, which was Rs. 13,608. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was of the opinion that the annual value was too low...
Tag this Judgment!Manick Lal Singh Vs. Gouri Shankar Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal245
P. Chatterjee, J. 1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the subordinate judge, Alipore in a suit for partition. The plaintiff is a purchaser from one of the co-sharers, a brother of the defendant. The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition claiming one half share in the disputed property. The defendant filed a petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act and applied for a relief under that section on the ground that the property was a dwelling house. It belonged to an undivided family and it has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family. The application under Section 4 was allowed by the trial court; against that there was an appeal and the appeal has been dismissed. The appeal to this Court is against the decision of the appellate court At an earlier stage of the proceeding we sent the matter to the court below for enquiry as to whether whole of the property was a dwelling house or not and whether the portion which has been in use and occupation o...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Mukhopadhaya and anr. Vs. Provash Chandra Majumdar and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Cal88
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for partition, in which the plaintiffs made a claim for pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act.2. The suit was instituted on March 20, 1957. The plaint was a simple plaint for partition on the allegation inter alia that the plaintiffs had l/3rd undivided share in the disputed property. Within two days, namely, on March 22, 1957, the plaintiffs applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from erecting structures on the suit land or changing its character and, in the said application, a reference was made to theplaintiffs' claim for pre-emption, or right in that behalf, -- under Section 4 of the Partition Act upon the ground that the defendant was a stranger purchaser, although he had purchased the major share, namely, 2/3rds, and, on the implication, though not very expressly stated, that the disputed property comprised the ancestral dwelling house of the plaintiffs' family. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Panchu Gopal Das Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal38,1968CriLJ40
Amaresh Roy, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 411A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Panchu Gopal who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in a trial held in the Fourth Criminal Sessions of 1964 presided by our learned brother, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A K. Das sitting with a Special Jury in the ordinary Original Criminal Jurisdiction of this Court. The jury delivered a unanimous verdict of guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Panchu Gopal and accepting that unanimous verdict the learned Judge convicted him for that offence and awarded a sentence of imprisonment for life on September 16. 1984.2. The occurrence that led to the charge against the appellant happened on the 12th September, 1963 The Magistrate made the order of commitment on 7-3-64 Before the Magistrate the procedure under Section 207 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was followed The accused does not appear to...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Cal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR122(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, made in circumstances hereinafter stated.The assessee is a public limited company, doing business in manufacture of textile machinery.The assessment years in question are 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, the material valuation dates being December 31, 1956, December 31, 1957, and December 31, 1958. There is no dispute that the accounts of the business, carried on by the assessee, are regularly maintained on mercantile basis.As is now the common feature with most of the manufacturing concerns, the employees of the assessee-company were carrying on an industrial dispute with the assessee, concerning payment of bonus. This dispute is not of recent origin. In the year 1955, the employees made a claim for bonus and carried the matter before an Industrial Tribunal, which made an award of Rs. 5,65,000 in favour of the employees. This award was implemented in the year 1956. For similar claims concerning the years 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »