Kolkata Court July 1969 Judgments
Bhanu Dutta and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal127,74CWN384
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J.1. In this application the petitioners asked for appropriate writs directing the respondents to cancel, withdraw, rescind or set aside the finally published electoral rolls for the election of the Corporation of Howrah held on May 21, 1967 and also for a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from holding the said election on May 21, 1967.2. The petitioners are citizens of what previously was known as Bally Municipality. The areas within the Bally Municipality were included in the area of Howrah Municipality and the two areas together have been incorporated in the Municipal Corporation of Howrah, by the Howrah Municipal Act, 1965.3. The petitioners took various points in this application. Mr. Nani Coomar Chakraborty learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, however, pressed only one point, to which I shall presently refer although he did not Rive up the other contentions raised by him in this matter.4. The point pressed by Mr. Chakraborty was that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Annapurna Kumar Vs. Subodh Chandra Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal433
S.K. Chakravarti, J.1. This is an appeal by one Annapurna Kumar whose application for revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration to the respondent Subodh Chandra Kumar was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly. It appears that the properties were left by one Sarat Chandra Kumar who died intestate on -14-4-36. On the 16th of February 1939 his widowed mother Rakhalmani filed an application for Letters of Administration, and objections were filed by Subodh and his brothers, who happened to be the sons of the sister of Sarat. Their case was that the grant of Letters of Administration was unnecessary. The case ended in a compromise on the 14th of September, 1940 and an order was made for grant of Letters of Administration jointly to Rakhalmani and Subodh on their furnishing security. Subodh did not furnish any security and Rakhalmani alone did so, and on the 11th of April 1944, Letters of Administration were issued to Rakhalmani. On the 25th of May, 1955, Subodh applied...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. Calcutta Discount Company ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1969
Reported in: [1971]82ITR941(Cal)
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA J. - This reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relates to the assessment year 1947-48. The assessee floated a subsidiary company called 'Messrs. Clive Row Investment (Holding) Co. Ltd.' during the previous year. To the newly formed company the assessee transferred various shares which the assessee had held In lieu of these transfers the assessee received shares of the new company valued at Rs. 1,38,81,173. The cost price of the shares which the assessee transferred to its subsidiary was Rs. 1,66,69,391. Apparently, by this transaction the assessee suffered a loss but in the assessees profit and loss account this loss was not claimed as a deduction on the ground that the transfer of shares to the subsidiary was not a business transaction.The Income-tax Officer found that the market price of transferred shares was Rs. 2,69,09,937. He called for an explanation for these transfers at a rate which was below the market rate and even the cost p...
Tag this Judgment!Jadabendra Nath Mishra Vs. Smt. Manorama Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal199,73CWN875
P.N. Mookerjee, A.C.J. 1. This Rule was obtained against an order of the learned trial Judge, dismissing the petitioner's application under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the view that, in the circumstances of this case, the Court had, as a matter of law, no power to extend the time, as prayed for in the said application. 2. Broadly speaking, the relevant facts are as follows: The original suit for partition was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the present petitioner, who was a defendant in the said suit, made an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13, of the Code of Civil Procedure. This gave rise to the Misc. case in question and, in the said Misc. case, the parties eventually came to terms and filed a petition of compromise, under which the petitioner was topay a certain amount within a certain time to have the Misc. case allowed and the suit restored to file after the setting aside of the relative ex parte decree. There ...
Tag this Judgment!Mansa Ram Zade Vs. Hindusthan Steel Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Cal178,1971CriLJ699,74CWN114
R.N. Dutt, J.1. The petitioner was on February 16, 1962, appointed a graduate apprentice in the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. on terms and conditions contained in letter No. Perep/HSL-32(2)/62. Under the terms he was to be on training for two years and thereafter, he would execute a bond to serve the company for a period of five years of which the first two years would be the period of probation. The petitioner was on appointment allotted to Alloy Steel Plant under the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. He was sent abroad for training and on his return he was posted to the Fuel Section of the Utilities Department in the said Plant His performance there--the authorities alleged--was not satisfactory and he was tried in several other departments one alter the other and the authorities alleged that he could not prove himself suitable anywhere. Ultimately, on February 21, 1968, the Hindusthan Steel Ltd. informed the petitioner that his performance was not useful for the company and advised him to try for alter...
Tag this Judgment!Rai Mohan Das and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal206,73CWN919
P.N. Mookerjee, Ag. C. J. 1. This Rule was obtained by the petitioners against an order of the Board of Revenue, rejecting their contention that the instant certificate was barred by limitation and, further, that the claim under it, so far as the certificate-holder is concerned, was an excess claim. 2. The question of limitation was raised under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the allegation being that more than 12 years had passed from the filing of the certificate and no execution is permissible of the same any longer. On this point the decision must go against the petitioners, as it appears that the execution case, which appears to have been started more than 12 years ago, is still continuing. There is no question of fresh execution and, accordingly, the plea of bar under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if it is otherwise available, cannot be accepted. On this ground, we overrule the petitioners' above contention. 3. As to the second contention, however, n...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal on Behal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Cal594,1969CriLJ1480
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal and is against an order dated the 11th September, 1968 passed by Shri A.K. Sen, Magistrate. 1st Class, Midnapur (S) in case No. 164 (S) of 1968/T. R. 1929/68 under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, allowing the prayer made on be half of the defence for granting copies of the documents and statements upon which the prosecution wanted to rely and rejecting the objection made on behalf of the prosecution in that behalf-2. The facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass. At about 23 hours on 8-5-68 a General Diary was entered at the Nimpura R. P. F. Post Station Stating inter alia that at about 9-30 p. m. during the course of their patrol duty, some members belonging to the Railway Protection Force, referred to in the said diary, noticed the two accused in the company of some others proceeding towards the Bombay Road t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bombay Photo Stores Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR84(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. The statement of the case raises the following two points for an answer :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the statutory percentages applicable under Section 23A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the distribution of dividends on 24th March, 1960, were 45 per cent. and 60 per cent. in respect of processing receipts and trading receipts respectively ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the shortfall in the distribution of dividend by the assessee was less than 5 per cent. of the total income as reduced by the amounts mentioned in Section 23A(1) of the said Act, and the assessee as such was entitled to a notice under Section 23A(2)(ii) thereof '2. The facts giving rise to this question may be briefly summarised : The assessee, Bombay Photo Stores Pvt. Ltd., is a private limited company to which the provisions of Section 23A are applicable. In the present case, the assessme...
Tag this Judgment!Kshetra Mohan Nath Vs. District Controller of Stores, E. Rly. Halishah ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal131
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. The petitioner, who entered Into the service as Khalasi under the Eastern Railway, was, at the material time, working as Clerk, Grade III. By the letter at Ann. B., dated the 31st May, 1962, the Controller of Stores (Respondent no. 3) asked the petitioner to submit a complete statement of his assets, movable and immovable by the 15th June, 1962. Another letter was issued by respondent no. 3 to the same effect on the 28th June, 1962 (Ann. C), but on the 26th December, 1962, the charge-sheet at Ann. G was Issued against the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for 'disobedience of order' for having failed to submit his statement of assets by the 15th June, 1962, even though he was reminded of his obligation by a second letter.2. In his answer to the charge-sheet (Ann. H), the petitioner stated, inter alia that in course of a proceeding started by the Special Police Establishment, the statement of assets had been called for by them from the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Dutta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1969Cal604
ORDERD. Basu, J.1. Having been appointed as Assistant Inspector of Works in 1934, the Petitioner was, at the material lime, working as Inspector of works at the Kanchrapara workshop of the Eastern Railway. There was a raid on the workshop by dacoits in November 1961, after which it was discovered that 657 steel lees were missing. After a fact-finding inquiry, the Divisional Engineer (Respondent No. 3) issued against the petitioner the charge-sheet at Ann. A to the petition, dated the 25th March, 1964 asking him to show cause why he should not be punished with removal or any lesser penalty for negligence of duty-(i) for failure to ensure the proper locking and sealing of the godown under his charge, which caused loss of Rs.6600 approximately to the Railway; (ii) for failure to verify the stock every 6 months; (iii) for failure to exercise casual check of the stock. 2. After the petitioner submitted his explanation to this charge, however, no inquiry was held but by the ex parte order at...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »