Kolkata Court October 1969 Judgments
income-tax Officer, H-ward and anr. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Bhose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: [1972]84ITR60(Cal)
D. Basu, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of A.N. Sen J. dated September 2, 1966, in Matter No. 185 of 1966 Sudhir Kumar Bhose v. Income-tax Officer, H-Ward, Dist. III(I), [1968] 69 I.T.R. 446 (Cal.), by which he made the petitioner's rule absolute, quashing the notice issued by the respondent, Income-tax, Officer, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), dated February 22, 1966, which is set out in the judgment.2. The notice is to the effect that the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that the income of the petitioner chargeable for the assessment year has 'escaped assessment', that the assessment was accordingly proposed to be reopened and that the petitioner was therefore called upon to submit a fresh return of his assessable income for that year within a given time. The petitioner, in reply, wrote the letter at page 16 of the paper book, dated March 21, 1966, challenging the jurisdiction of the respondent to issue the no...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Ganguly and ors. Vs. Calcutta Dock Labour Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal227,74CWN313
1. These five appeals arise out of a common order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court Calcutta, in five suits, returning the plaints for presentation to the proper Court. 2. The appellants were registered dock labourers under the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. The Board took disciplinary action against them for an alleged misconduct and, pending enquiry, they were suspended. The Deputy Chairman of the Board, who held the enquiry, found them all guilty of the said charge of misconduct and ordered their dismissal from service on May 23, 1961. There was an appeal by them to the Chairman but it was dismissed on September 8, 1961. 3. The appellants then instituted suits against the Dock Labour Board in the City Civil Court, challenging the legality and validity of the order of dismissal. There were also some prayers for such incidental reliefs as damages, recovery of arrears of pay etc. 4. The Dock Labour Board, against which the suits were brought is a Statutory Corporation, created under th...
Tag this Judgment!The Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Kumar Purnendu Nath Tagor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal231
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. On 20th of December, 1968 this suit appeared in my list of suits in the Special List under Chapter X of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court. This suit was filed on 2nd of February, 1951. Counsel appeared on that date and made oral submissions before me that I should adjourn the suit till the next date for taking up suits in the Special List as his client was not in a position to place the facts relating to the non-prosecution of the suit. As there was no affidavit I was not inclined to accept the oral submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff in this suit and as no cause was shown why the suit had not been prosecuted so long. I directed that the suit be dismissed. On the 20th of January, 1969 this application was noted as made and a notice of motion was taken out for recalling and setting aside the said order made on the 20th of December, 1968 and further praying for review of the said order dated 20th December 1968 and for directions for the h...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-06-1969
Reported in: [1970]78ITR700(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a notice issued by the respondent-Income-tax Officer, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at B-4, Gillander House, Calcutta. It used to carry on business as colliery owners. By an indenture of sale executed and registered on the 28th September, 1957, the petitioner sold its collieries to M/s. Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Ltd. with effect from 1st January, 1955, for a total consideration of Rs. 62 lakhs with a abatement of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of the retrenchment compensation liability of the vendor taken over by the purchaser. The petitioner-company went into voluntary liquidation on the 26th June, 1958, and the present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-company by the liquidators. The company's accounting year ended o...
Tag this Judgment!Suranjan Kanjilal Vs. Malati Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal229
ORDERA.C. Gupta, J.1. An application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the petitioner to set aside an ex parte decree for eviction passed against him was itself dismissed for default. The petitioner then applied under Section 151of the Code to set aside the order of dismissal stating reasons for his non-appearance when the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was called on for hearing. The Court below dismissed the application under Section 151 on the ground that as the Code provides an appeal from an order dismissing an application under Order 9, Rule 13. the application under Section 151 was not maintainable. The legality of this last order is in question in this Rule.2. Mr. A. K. Motilal learned Advocate for the petitioner, raised two contentions to show that the order passed by the learned Munsif was wrong. Mr. Motilal submitted, first, that the order dismissing for default the application under Order 9, Rule 13 was not appealable and, secondly, even if th...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotish Chandra Guha Vs. Sm. Meera Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal266
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by the husband against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, 24-Parganas allowing the wife's application for a decree of divorce.2. The material allegations of the wife in her petition for divorce are as follows:(a) The parties were married on 21st January, 1945, under the provision of the Special Marriage Act (Act III of 1872). It appears that the age of the wife at the time of marriage was about 21 years while the age of the husband then was 34 years. After marriage the wife came to reside at 80/D, Lansdown Road, Ballygunge, being the place of husband's residence. Within a few days, the wife found the husband cold and indifferent and sexually abnormal and perverse. Shortly thereafter, the husband left for United Kingdom on business for about three months and the wife became busy with her M. A. examination which was held in August, 1945. During the period from marriage till September, 1945, except the sojourn in fore...
Tag this Judgment!Dungarmall Sarewalla JaIn and ors. Vs. Rukma Kumar Jalal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal443,74CWN318
Salil Kumar Dutta, J. 1. This rule arises out of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (Act XXXVI of 1963), for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was filed on January 6, 1969, and according to the Stamp Reporter, the appeal would be in time if filed on January 3, 1969, but was out of time for 3 days. The memorandum of appeal was returned to the learned Advocate for the appellants on February 20, 1969, and the application on which this rule has been issued was filed on February 21, 1969. 2. The plaintiffs appellants' explanation for this delay is that the judgment under appeal was delivered on November 15, 1968, and the decree was prepared on November 26, 1968. The appellant No. 2 who was in charge of the suit, on receipt of the news of death of his brother-in-law left Calcutta in the third week of November 1968 and returned to Calcutta on December 10, 1968. The application for copy was made by him on December 12, 1968, through Deonandan Ojha, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›