Kolkata Court May 1968 Judgments
Mohammed Seraj Vs. Adibar Rahaman Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Cal550,72CWN867
Bijayesh Mukherji, J.1. Is the admission in the plaint of a suit, permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to sue afresh of any effect, in the suit instituted afterwards, in pursuance of the liberty so given? That is the principal point raised upon this appeal by the plaintiff from an appellate judgment and decree of affirmance 2. The stance the plaintiff takes is: Plot No 208, admeasuring, 84 acres, under Khatian no 208, of mouja Bara, within the jurisdiction of Nalhati police-station, in the district of Birbhum, appertains to a Jama of Rs. 16-13as. 10 pies, under the landlord Maharaj Bahadur Singh. As the result of a partition amongst the co-sharers, it falls to the exclusive share of Hi at Sk. Seized of the plot so, Ijjat Sk. executes a heba-bil-ewaj, exhibit 1, for just that in favour of his nephew Esvan Sk. The date of a document as this is Baisakh 3, 1344 B. S., corresponding to April 16, 1937. Ever since, Esban Sk has been in possession thereof; and, after his death his son, Seraj...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR319(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding accounting year ended on the 30th June, 1957. On April 18, 1950, the respondent purchased 19,540 preference shares and 5,085 ordinary shares of Messrs. Muir Mills Ltd. for Rs. 87,05,000.00 at an auction sale held by the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. During the relevant accounting year the respondent sold 4,402 preference shares and 549 ordinary shares. Since Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was operative with regard to sates of capital assets after the 31st March, 1956, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice requiring the assessee, that is the respondent, to furnish particulars of the shares sold and the capital gains made. The assessee, in reply, claimed a loss of Rs. 1,03,994.00 which included an expenditure of Rs. 1,00,721'00 incurred by the assessee in litigation in respect of 549 ordinary shares and 4,...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Pearoo Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal157,1969CriLJ405
R.N. Dutt, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus against the detention of Mohd. Idris under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.2. It appears that the detenu, Mohd. Idris is being detained on the basis of an order of detention made by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, on February 5, 1968 under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.The detention order reads as follows: ''Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Mohd. Idris, son of Mohd. Israil of 19 Watgunge Street (Austin Berry Gali) Calcutta, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do, I therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 make this order directing that the said Mohd. Idris be detained.'3. Mr. Bose first submits that the detenu was ta...
Tag this Judgment!Kartic Chandra Pal and anr. Vs. Noakhali Union Bank Ltd., (In Liquidat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal158
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule raises an important question.2. The point, which requires consideration in this case, is whether the executing court, before whom execution is pending, it having been transferred to that court by this Court, exercising Company jurisdiction, would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide a claim in relation to the said execution under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a case, where a banking company in liquidation is involved.3. The relevant facts lie within a short compass and are as follows:4. Opposite Party No. 1, Noakhall Union Bank Ltd., went into liquidation sometime in the year 1949 and winding up proceedings are still pending in this Court. In the meantime, it obtained a decree on May 13, 1953, in Suit No. 2650A/3 of 1950 from this Court on its original side for Rs. 4,100/- with costs against Opposite Party No. 2, Tulsi Charan Paul. This decree was, eventually, transferred for execution to Ali-pore. In course of this execution, w...
Tag this Judgment!imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Cal582,73CWN169
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act of 1958. 2. The Appellant is the Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. having its registered office at Virginia House, 37. Chowringhee, Calcutta. The respondents are the Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. 3. The facts are briefly as follows: On 29-2-60 the Appellant made its first application for registration of a trade mark before the Registrar applying for registration as a trade mark of a label bearing the device of snow-clad hills in outline and the word 'Simla' written prominently in various panels of the label. The specification of the goods in the application reads as 'Manufactured tobacco'. This application was for registration of the trade mark in Part A of the Register in Clause 34 The application stated: 'The said trade mark is proposed to be used 'The point is that on 29-2-60 there was no use of the said trade mark and it was only proposed to be used at that point of tim...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Krishna Paul and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Be ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR618(Cal)
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is 1959-60, the corresponding previous year being 1365 B. S. Two persons named Anil Krishna Paul and Jogendralal Nandy had acquired a right of receiving commission of 1 per cent. on sales by Messrs. Annapurna Cotton Mills Ltd. by an agreement dated the 26th January, 1950. Thereafter, the benefits of the agreement with the said cotton mills were transferred to the present applicants, Sunil Krishna Paul and Amar Krishna Poddar, by a deed of assignment dated the 10th December, 1951. The deed of assignment was executed by Anil Krishna Paul and the legal heirs of Jogendralal Nandy. As consideration for the assignment the applicants had to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000. Thereafter, on August 9, 1954, the two assignees, Sunil Krishna Paul and Amar Krishna Poddar, entered into an agreement of partnership to share the aforesaid commission.For the assessment year 1959-60 the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax West Bengal I Vs. J. K. Industries (Private ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR594(Cal)
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA J. - In this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the respondent is a private limited company which acts as the managing agent of several public limited companies like the Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd.. Bihar Mines Ltd., J. k. Steel Ltd. and Hoyles Paints Ltd. The assessment year involoved is 1959-60, the corresponding previous year being the financial year ended 31st March, 1959. During the relevant period one of the directors of the respondent was sent to Europe to explore the possibilities of technical and financial collaboration with foreign concerns in the matter of manufacture of paints (this is the business of Hoyles Paints Ltd.) and hoist cranes and conveying equipments (later on manufactured by J. K. steel Ltd.) and also to acquire generally available technical knowledge about manufacture of paints, wire ropes, hoops and box-strapping. The total expense; but the Income-tax Office disallowed the claim mainly on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!inland Revenue Commissioners Vs. Land Securities Investment Trust Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR105(Cal)
APPEAL from CROSS J. 1The following are the relevant paragraphs of the case stated by the commissioners :1. At a meeting of the special commissioners held on July 20 and 21, 1965, the Land Securities Investment Trust Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company') appealed against the following assessments to profits tax : Chargeable accounting period from April 1, 1959, to March 31, 1960, in a sum of Pounds 30,000 (tax); chargeable accounting period from April 1, 1960, to March 31, 1961, in a sum of Pounds 50,000 (tax); chargeable accounting period from April 1, 1961, to March 31, 1962, in a sum of Pounds 45,000 (tax); chargeable accounting period from April 1, 1962, to March 31, 1963, in a sum of Pounds 24,000 (tax); and chargeable accounting period from April 1, 1963, to March 31, 1964, in a sum of Pounds 1,68,750 (tax).4. The company was a very large public company carrying on business as a property investment trust company. Its issued share and debenture capital totalled some 85m., and it...
Tag this Judgment!Mapp (inspector of Taxes) Vs. Oram.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR354(Cal)
May 15. DANCKWERTS L.J. - This is an appeal from a judgment of Ungoed-Thomas J. dated July 24, 1967, dismissing an appeal of the Crown, from decision of the general commissioners of the division of West Goscote in the country of Leicester, on May 19, 1966. The date of the case stated by the commissioners is November 30, 1966.The question to be decided arises upon the provisions in the Income Tax Act relating to childrens allowances obtainable in certain circumstances.[His Lordship read the Income Tax Act, 1952, s. 212(1), (1A) and (4), and the facts set out in the case stated, and continued :The question, therefore is whether in the year of assessment 1965-66 the son was entitled in his own right to an income exceeding pound 115 within the meaning of section 212(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1952.It must be appreciated, of course, that no part of the earnings of the son in France in the circumstances was taxable in the United Kingdom, as not part thereof was remitted to that country.The Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Mac. Laboratories Private Ltd. Vs. American Home Products Corporation ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Cal342
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a Trade Mark Appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The appellant is Mac Laboratories Private Ltd., a company with limited liability and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its office at Great Social Building 60, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Road, Bombay. The respondents are the American Home Products Corporation, a corporation incorporated in the United States of America having its office at 22, East 40th Street New York, United States of America and the Registrar of Trade Marks having his office in Calcutta.2. The appeal arises out of the appellant's application made to the Registrar for removal of the trade mark 'Dristan' registered under No, 186511 in Class 5 from the register of trade marks. This mark 'Dristan' belongs to the American Company mentioned above. The application of the appellant before the Registrar was made under Section 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.3. The grounds on which the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »