Kolkata Court July 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.
Sm. Latika Ghosh Vs. Nirmal Kumar Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal68
ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioner against two orders of the learned trial Judge in the Matrimonial Suit, pending before him, for judicial separation at the instance of the opposite party (husband). By the first order, the learned trial Judge directed the petitioner (wife) to file her written statement before her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for alimony pcndente lite would be heard. By the second order, the said learned Judge rejected the petitioner's prayer for time to file written statement on the ground that the same could not be filed before the alimony matter was decided, and fixed a particular date for ex parte hearing of the suit.2. In our view, this Rule must be made absolute and the impugned orders must be set aside. It is not open to the learned Judge under the statute, as it stands, or, under the relevant law, to impose a condition on an applicant for alimony that her said application will not be heard unless she files her written stat...
Dr. S.C. Sen Gupta Vs. Sm. Durgabati Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Cal328
ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by the defendant petitioner in the pending suit for ejectment, out of which it arises, against an order of the learned trial Judge, refusing to permit him to take copies of two documents, referred to in the plaint. The documents to question are a deed of lease and a deed of conveyance. The petitioner defendant applied for permission to inspect the said documents and for taking copies of the same. 2. This prayer was opposed by the plaintiffs but the learned Judge, after hearing both the parties, by his order No. 12 dated 28-3-1967, permitted the petitioner to inspect thesaid documents and directed the plaintiffs to give inspection of the same on a particular date at a particular time in the presence of the Bench Clerk, the plaintiffs being obviously required to produce the said two documents in court for that purpose. 3. The above order, however, did not make any provision for permitting the defendant petitioner to take copies of the said two documents. 4....
Askaran Kissenlal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1967
Reported in: [1969]73ITR522(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), arises out of the following facts.2. A firm in the name and style of Askaran Kissenlal was doing business in jute from the year 1946. There were originally three partners in the firm, namely, (1) Askaran Bothra, (2) Hansraj Bothra and (3) Mulchand Bothra. The firm was reconstituted under a deed of partnership dated the 3rd April, 1952, whereby (1) Hiralal Jain, (2) Hulaschand Jain and (3) Bhowarilal Kissenlal, a Hindu undivided family consisting of Bhowarilal and Kissenlal with Bhowarilal as the karta, were admitted as partners as from the 3rd April, 1952. Bhowarilal and Kissenlal were the two sons of the original partner, Mulchand, who had other sons, and at the time of the execution of the deed, Kissenlal was a minor. Hiralal and Hulaschand were not related to the original partners and they introduced Rs. 1,41,500 and Rs. 1,44,145 respectively as their capital in the bu...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. M.S. Grewal and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal333
Ray, J.1. This appeal is from an order of Datta, J.2. The respondent made an application for an order that Agreement No. 694/ Con/SER/62 be filed and for an order for payment of costs3. The respondent in the petition alleged that the said agreement 694/CON/ SER/62 dated 10 July. 1962 was entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant. Relevant portions of the agreement are set out at pages 4 and 5 of the paper book. The respondent alleged in the petition that disputes and differences arose and the respondent claimed under the said agreement large sums of money which the appellant disputed or refused to pay. The further al-legations of the respondent were that by a letter dated 3-1 October, 1964 the respondent called upon the General Manager to invoke Clause 63 of the general condition and to appoint arbitrators. Clause 63 is for the sake of brevity described as an arbitration agreement. The respondent alleged that the authorities did not appoint any arbitrator. The respondent alleged ...
Babulal Churiwala and ors. Vs. Sri Aurobindo Agency
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Cal396
ORDERA.N. Sen, J.1. This is an application for setting aside an award made by Shri G. P. Lath, a solicitor of this Court. Acting as the sole arbitrator Shri Lath made the award on the 28th of September. 1965 awarding a sum of Rs. 26,821.11 p in favour of the award (sic) is being challenged in this proceeding.2. The award is being challenged mainly on two grounds, namely (i) Shri Lath was never appointed asthe sole arbitrator and in any event ShriLath was not validly appointed as the solearbitrator and as such the award made byshri Lath as the sole arbitrator is bad; and (ii) Shri Lath as arbitrator has miscon-ducted himself and the proceedings. 3. The relevant allegations on the basis of which the validity of the award is questioned are set out in paragraph 34 of the petition.4. Before dealing with the respective contentions of the parties and for proper appreciation thereof, it is necessary to consider certain facts. M/s. C. K. Agarwalla is a partnership firm of which the first three...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalhousie Properties Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1967
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas797(Cal),[1968]70ITR283(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), the following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no order under Section 23A should have been made for the three years in question in view of the fact that the non-trading loss of Rs. 6,88,000 was not wiped off in the accounts '2. The reference relates to the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58, the corresponding previous years being the financial years ending on 31st March, 1955, 31st March, 1956 and 31st March, 1957, respectively. The assessee is a public limited company and it is admitted that it is not a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of Section 23A(9). It owns a large number of house properties in the city of Calcutta, the income arising from whic...
Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1967
Reported in: [1968]38CompCas660(Cal),[1968]69ITR379(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. The assessee, a public limited company, is a manufacturer and dealer, inter alia, in steel wire products. In the computation of the total income for the assessment year 1957-58 (corresponding to the accounting year ending with March 31, 1957), the assessee claimed the following amounts as deductions:(1) Contribution of Rs. 1,50,000, to the Indian National Congress.(2) Provision for payment of bonus amounting to Rs. 5,55,000, in addition to the actual payment of bonus during the accounting period, and(3) Anticipated wealth-tax liability amounting to Rs. 1,62,653.2. The Income-tax Officer allowed the first and the second claim but disallowed the third and completed the assessment some time in March, 1958. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of assessment, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on or about April 8, 1958. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice, under Section 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›