Kolkata Court April 1968 Judgments
Srinarayan Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Collector and District Magistrate of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal446
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. In this Rule the petitioners pray that the order of requisition dated llth January, 1946, which is at Annexure 'I' to the petition should be cancelled and the disputed property should be restored back to the possession of the petitioner No. 1 who is stated to have purchased the property from petitioner No. 2, who again had purchased it from the original owners of the land as mentioned in the order of requisition. The order of requisition was issued under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules made under the Act of 1939 for the purpose of using it as a Government storage godown which was necessary 'for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community' and the order was made by the District Magistrate of Burdwan. 2. The petitioner's case is that the State of West Bengal has ceased to use the land for the original purpose for which it has been requisitioned and that instead of using it as 'Government grain Storage Godown' it was being used at t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gani Haji Habib and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR6(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. This reference, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has been made in circumstances hereinafter related.2. Haji Habib Haji Pirmohammed, now deceased, represented by his legal representatives, Abdul Gani Haji Habib and others, used to be assessed as an individual. It was stated before us that the said assessee was a Pakistani national and by two notifications published in the India Gazette, dated December 11, 1965, the estate of the deceased assessee vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The first of the notifications reads :'No: 12/137/65-E. Pty.--In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 133-V of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Central Government is pleased to order that all property in India, movable and immovable, belonging to, or held byj or managed on behalf of, Messrs. Haji Habib Pirmohammed, 25, Amratolla Street, Calcutta-1, shall vest in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India.'3. The other notification ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kalyanji Mavji and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR107(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and by different High Courts in India in a number of cases, still remains a rich germinating ground for forensic arguments. One such argument confronts us in this reference.2. The circumstances in which this reference has been made are hereinafter related in brief.3. The assessee, Messrs. Kalyanji Mavji & Co., is a registered firm. The year of assessment, with which we are concerned in this reference, is 1956-57, corresponding to the accounting year being the Gujrati Diwali year 2011. The original assessment for the year in question was completed, on February 20, 1957, on a total income of Rs. 7,44,551, after having allowed deduction of a sum of Rs. 43,116 being interest paid by the assessee on borrowed money. This assessment was reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by a sum of Rs. 9,200, by his order dated July 3, 1958.4. In the course of the assessment proceedings ...
Tag this Judgment!National Trading Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR513(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This reference, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has been made in the circumstances hereinafter related.The year of assessment, with which we are concerned, is 1958-59, the corresponding accounting year being the calendar year ending with December 31, 1957.The assessee is a firm of 11 partners, constituted by a deed of partnership, dated May 14, 1956. Out of the 11 partners, 9 were minors when the deed was executed. Of the minors, Ratish Kumar Agarwalla (party of the fourth part in the deed of partnership) attained majority during the relevant year of accounting. Registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act had been accorded to the assessee-firm on the basis of the partnership deed, dated May 14, 1956, for the assessment year 1957-58, which was the first year of the business. When renewal of this registration was asked for, in the assessment year 1958-59, the prayer was refused by the Income-tax Officer. The order of the Income-tax Of...
Tag this Judgment!Prem N. Mayor and ors. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal80
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 from the decision of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dated the 7th November, 1964, dismissing the appellant's opposition to the respondent Pannalal Agarwal's application for registration. The other respondent in this appeal is the Registrar of Trade Marks.2. Before stating the facts giving rise to the points for decision in this appeal it will be worth drawing attention to the present situation in respect of registration of Trade Marks and the delay that has occurred in this case. The application for registration was made as early as the 18th April, 1960. This appeal in this Court is being heard eight years after that application was made. About two years passed from the date of the application for registration for advertisement to issue; such advertisement issued on the 1st January. 1962. Again another two years elapsed before the matter was heard before the Deputy Registrar on th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-1 Vs. Sandersons and Morgans
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal211,[1970]75ITR433(Cal)
Banerjee, J. 1. This reference, under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 raises an interesting question about solicitor-client relationship.2. The institution of Solicitors is an English institution, which has been imported to or copied by this country. In dealing with the position of Solicitors in India, Marten, C. J., observed in Tyabji Dayabhai & Co. v. Jetha Devsi & Co. : AIR1927Bom542 :--'In the first place it must be clearly understood that the rights and duties of attorney are in no way part of the indigenous law or practice in India. Their profession originates from, England; it grew up under the English Common Law and it is clear that it was the Common Law which governed their rights and duties in the King's Courts established by the Supreme Court Charter of 1823 to which Courts our present High Court is the successor.'This Court quoted with approval the above observation in Damodar Das v. Morgan & Co. : AIR1934Cal341 and Panckridge, J., observed:'Mutatis mutand...
Tag this Judgment!James David Crighton and ors. Vs. S.K. Srivastava
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal260
ORDER1. There are three petitioners in this Rule. Petitioner No. 2 is a New Zealand Company, carrying on the business of carriage of goods and passengers by sea and owning, amongst other vessels, a cargo ship called 'M.V. Wairimu', Petitioner No. 3 company are the Calcutta agents of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 is the Master of the vessel 'Wairimu'.2. On February 14, 1963, M.V. Wairimu arrived at the port of Calcutta on her voyage from Auckland, via ports in the Far East. After her arrival and berthing at No. 2 G.R. Jetty, Calcutta. Customs Officers kept guard over her and rummaging of the ship commenced on February 15, 1963 and continued upto February 23, 1963. In course of rummaging, large quantities of prohibited goods, such as, transistor radios, wrist watches, fountain pens, cosmetics and other consumers' goods were recovered from various parts of the ship.3. Thereafter, a number of notices were issued to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, calling upon them to show cause why the s...
Tag this Judgment!Jayantilal O'shah Vs. Chief Presidency Magistrate and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ282
D.N. Sinha, C. J.1. This is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution praying for the transfer of a criminal proceeding pending in the court of 8th Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, to this Court. The facts are briefly as follows: The petitioner in this application is Jayantilal O'Shah, a resident of 13. Armenian Street in the city of Calcutta. According to the petitioner, he was carrying on business as an order supplier by remaking gold ornaments and polishing gold and silver ornaments. In 1963 he took out a licence under the Gold Control Rules from the Superintendent, Gold Control, Calcutta who was the licencing authority under the said rules. This was an annual licence and the petitioner did not take out any licence in 1964 onwards, although according to the respondent, he still carries on business in the manufacture of ornaments of gold at premises No. 13, Armenian Street. Before I proceed further, it will be necessary to state something more about the said Rules. The Def...
Tag this Judgment!Guest Keen Williams Ltd. Vs. the Additional Member, Board of Revenue
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC198(Cal)
Banerjee, J.1. A point of limitation has been raised in this Rule, by Mr. K. C. Mukherji, learned counsel for the respondent, as a plea in bar. We feel bound to deal with the plea as a preliminary point.2. There is no dispute that the order in revision was made by the Board of Revenue on 28th January, 1967. There is also no dispute that the communication of the order was made to the petitioner on 4th March, 1967. The petitioner made the application, under Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, on 16th May, 1967, for a reference of certain points of law to this Court.3. Section 21, Sub-section (1), is couched in the following language :Within sixty days from the passing by the Board of Revenue of any order under Sub-section (3) of Section 20 affecting any liability of any dealer to pay tax under this Act, such dealer may, by application in writing accompanied by a fee of one hundred rupees, require the Board to refer to the High Court any question of law ar...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Dutta Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal55,1969CriLJ164
K.K. Mitra, J.1. This is a rule directed against the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, convicting the petitioner under Section 494 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The facts of the case are as follows:One Sovarani Dutta made a complaint to the effect that she was married with the petitioner according to Hindu rites, on the 1st of May, 1962 and she lived with the petitioner as husband and wife for sometime till November, 1962 and then the petitioner married for the second time under the Special Marriage Act of 1954 on the 24th of January, 1963.3. On these allegations the petitioner was charged under Section 494 Indian Penal Code for marrying again when he had a wife living. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. His defence was that he never married Sovarani, the complainant.4. The Learned Magistrate found the charge under Section 494 Indian Penal Code proved and convicted the petitioner.5. There is no dispute on the po...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »