Kolkata Court December 1969 Judgments
Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Cal221
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J. 1. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit is barred under provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff consigned 250 baskets of beedies on June 16, 1947, through the railways for their transport from Sealdah Railway Station to Ransapore Railway Station in Assam on the basis of agreement contained in the Railway Receipt No. 857964 of even date. Out of 250 baskets, 209 baskets were delivered on or about September 6, 1947, in damaged condition and contents from some baskets were pilfered while 41 baskets were not delivered at all. For the recovery of the damage caused by short delivery and also delivery of the beedies in damaged condition the plaintiffs instituted in the Court of Small Causes. Calcutta on February 20. 1948, a suit valued at Rs. 1890/ 11/- and the suit was decreed. For damages for non-delivery of 41 baskets the plaintiffs filed a suit on September 1, 1948, in the High Court at Calcutta. ...
Tag this Judgment!indrajit Choubey and anr. Vs. Sitaram Agarwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Cal160,74CWN938
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtors and it arises out of a proceeding for execution of a decree.2. The question, which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the claimants, under a partition of the decree-holder's interest can apply to continue the execution proceedings, started by the decree-holder.3. The learned trial Judge allowed the said application upon the view that the said claimants would be entitled to the relief, prayed for by them, under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 146. The judgment-debtors contend that, as, in the instant case, there was no notice given of the alleged assignment by partition, as required by the proviso to Order 21, Rule 16, the said provisions cannot aid the present Respondents.4. This aspect of the matter may not be altogether free from difficulty and the point whether, on partition, there is really any assignment, may not be altogether free from controversy. We do not, however, think ...
Tag this Judgment!The Administrator, 24 Parganas Zilla Parishad Vs. the State of West Be ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal346
ORDERK.L. Roy, J. 1. One Kartick Chandra Das, the respondent No. 3 herein, was employed as a driver originally by the District Board of 24 Parganas and later by its successor the 24 Parganas Zilla Parishad constituted under the West Bengal Zilla Parishad Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which is the petitioner in this case. Respondent No. 3 was asked to show cause by a notice dated the 8th January, 1964, in respect of certain alleged offences committed by him, but the enquiry in respect thereof was kept in abeyance by an order of the Administrator to be revived in case there were further complaints against the said respondent. Thereafter further complaints having been received another show-cause notice dated the 2nd December 1964 was served on him and an enquiry proceeding was started against the said respondent During the course of enquiry in respect of the said two show-cause notices, further complaints were received and a third show-cause notice dated the 15th Februa...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1969
Reported in: [1971]79ITR483(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of certain notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and Served on the petitioner by the respondent-Income-tax Officer with the object of reopening the petitioner's assessments for the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and1961-62, on the ground of the petitioner's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts for the purpose of its assessments for these years.2. Section 147 of the Act is more or less identical in terms with Section 34(1) of the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922, and provides as follows :' If- (a) the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under Section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer, or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has esc...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Sardar Vs. Sindhu Bala Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal444,74CWN622
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Bijayesh Mukharji, J. The appellant before us was the contesting defendant in the suit, which was brought by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of title and recovery of joint possession along with pro forma defendant No. 3. 2. The suit was dismissed by the two Courts below, but, in second appeal, this Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. 3. The whole controversy between the parties rests on the effect of a Memorandum on the rights of the parties under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. That Memorandum, as we read the same, records the fact of taking of possession by the parties concerned in pursuance of an exchange or agreement of exchange, made by mem in respect of their respective properties in Pakistan and India. It is the defendant's case that, in view of the said Memorandum, he is entitled to have his possession protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property A...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendranath Sadhukhan and anr. Vs. Chhotelal Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal449,74CWN869
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant (added defendant) under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of our learned brother R. N. Dntt, J. The appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' right of easement for discharging water from their holding No. 72 of the Municipality of Howrah through the appellant's holding No. 71 and for an appropriate injunction.2. The claim is a claim of easement of necessity and, although there was also another ground, namely, of implied grant, the first appellate Court has rightly pointed out that the case of implied grant cannot exist apart from easement of necessity in the circumstances of this case. All the three Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs' suit and, against their concurrent decision, the instant appeal has been filed by the added defendant.3. As already observed, the only point For consideration is whether the right claimed is an easement of necessity. The original two holdings Nos. 71 and 72 be...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sashi Bhushan Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal545
D. Basu, J. 1. The Union of India has preferred this appeal against an order passed by A. K. Sinha, J., dated the 12th of March, 1969 by which the Rule obtained by the respondent Dr. S. B. Biswas was made absolute and the impugned order of removal which is to be found at page 51 of the Paper-Book was struck down as invalid. Various grounds were taken by the petitioner-respondents but the Court only founded its judgment on two points: firstly, that the order of punishment was defective inasmuch as the material portion of the date, namely, the date from which the order was taken effect was kept blank by the punishing authority and it was subsequently filled in by a clerk at the office of the D. M. O. who deliveredthe punishment order to the respondent; secondly, that the appellate order which is at page 53, passed by the General Manager, did not comply with the requirements of Rule 1731 of the Railway Establishment Code, Vol. 1 which lays down the mode in which the appellate function was...
Tag this Judgment!Bhartiya Steel and Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, K ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1969
Reported in: [1971]81ITR156(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. A series of reported judgments of the Bombay and the Gujarat High Courts and four unreported decisions of this court have in effect been unruled by a very recent decision of the Supreme Court as yet unreported, a copy of which has been supplied to me in the course of hearing of the present petition. In this petition the petitioner challenges the validity of a notice for imposing penalty issued by the respondent, the Income-tax Officer, under Sections 271 and 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1960-61 was completed under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on 27th February, 1965. Subsequently, a notice dated the 26th February, 1965, under Section 274/271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was received by the petitioner to show cause why penalty should not be levied for concealing particulars of income or deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income in respect of the assessment year 1960-61 and this r...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sri Satya Narainji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR398(Cal)
D. Basu, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Court of Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, by which the suit of the respondents, under Schedule 2, Rule 43, of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, was decreed. There were two preliminary issues in the suit. One was whether the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the admitted non-compliance with the provision of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code so far as the suit in question was concerned and the second one, was the issue on the merits, namely, whether the trust to the suit property put up by the respondents was bona fide and valid. If that issue was decided in the affirmative the income tax department's proceeding and the certificate were patently binding upon the trustees of the suit, because they were not parties to these proceedings. The court below rejected the statutory plea under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and on the merits it upheld the case of the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Nripendra Ballav Pal and ors. Vs. Kamal Prasad Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal479
D. Basu, J. 1. In this case the plaintiffs who are the appellants before us filed a plaint in other Suit No. 62 of 1951 in the Court of the Munsif of Midnapore for administration of the estate left by one Brajendra Nath Rai. The prayers in the plaint were to have the property administered and to direct the defendants to make over the plaintiffs their respective shares of the suit property. The plaintiffs paid the Court-fees under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act and valued the suit at Rs. 2,000/-, provisionally taking it to be a suit for account for the purpose of Court-fees. The learned Munsif, however, assumed that the valuation of the plaint would be much higher than his pecuniary jurisdiction which at that time was Rs. 3,500/-. He therefore returned the plaint to the plaintiffs on 22nd February, 1954. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against that order but lost. The result was that the plaintiffs were obliged to present the plaint to the Subordinate Judge having jurisdictio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »