Kolkata Court June 1968 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.
Seth Nanak Chand Shadiram Vs. AmIn Chand Pyarilal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Cal8,74CWN390
Ray, J.1. This appeal is from the decree dated 7 February 1966 passed by A.K. Mukherjea J.2. The plaintiff Is the appellant.3. On 7 February 1966 the suit was dismissed with costs.4. The suit was filed on 8 June 1960. The plaintiff asked for a decree for Rs. 2,74,178-12-3.5. On 29 July 1965 a summons was taken out by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint The application for amendment was heard by S.P. Mitra J. on 21 September 1965 and the application was dismissed. There is no judgment to find out the reasons for dismissal of the application. It was contended that amendments should have been allowed.6. In the application for amendment the plaintiff alleged that the defendant by letter dated 24 July 1957 written and signed by the defendant and/or its agents duly authorised in that behalf duly acknowledged its liability to deliver the balance quantity of the goods under the contract and also acknowledged that the time for delivery and/or performance had not expired. In the subsequent...
Umaprasad Pal and ors. Vs. Mrityunjay Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Cal547,73CWN4
ORDERBijayesh Mukherji, J. 1. This is a rule obtained by the decree-holders in a partition suit, being Title Suit No. 14 of 1962 challenging the order of the munsif qua Executing court under Order 21. Rule 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which Mritvuniay Pal a pro forma defendant in that very suit, has been directed to be put into possession of the disputed property here - the northern portion of plot No. 902 admeasuring 11 acres, and forming part of the final decree .2. In the original suit, no relief was claimed against Mritvunjay Pal. All the same he was dispossessed of the property in controversy in execution of the decree by the decree-holders with the result aforesaid order for restoration of his possession. 3. AP a matter of words, O. 21, R. 100 has little repellent here. A judgment-debtor means a person against whom a decree has been passed: vide section 2(10) upon which Mr Pal relies Mritvuniay is a person against whom no decree has been passed. He is, therefore ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-ii Vs. A.N. Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Cal124
S.P. Mitra, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment years are 1958-59 and 1959-60, the corresponding previous years being the Bengali years ended on the 13th April 1958 and the 13th April 1959. On April 24, 1957, the respondent executed a deed of trust conveying certain stocks and debentures as well as his interest in landed properties valued in all at Rs. 4,98,000/- to his brother J.N. Chowdhury who was to hold such properties in trust for the benefit of J.N. Chowdhury's wife and 2 daughters, one married and the other a minor. On the same day J.N. Chowdhury created a similar trust involving assets and properties of the same nature and value as covered by the respondent's trust, appointing the respondent as the trustee for the benefit of the respondent's wife and his major son.2. In the assessments for the aforesaid two years, the Income-tax Officer observed that these mutual transfers were made with a view to avoid the income fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›