Kolkata Court September 1969 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.
Srimati Suniti Devi Jaipuria Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1969
Reported in: [1971]79ITR391(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. This is one more application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, served on the petitioner and all proceedings taken thereunder and also for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any further steps in respect of the impugned notice and for other ancillary reliefs. The petitioner is Srimati Suniti Devi Jaipuria and the respondents are, (1) the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XI, (2) the Income-tax Officer, Refund Circle, Calcutta, (3) the Income-tax Officer, ' C ' Ward, District II{2), Calcutta, (4) the Income-tax Officer, ' B ' Ward, District VI, Calcutta, (5) the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Calcutta, (6) the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I and (7) the Union of India. As the facts narrated and/or alleged in the petition as also the replies therefor in the affidavits-in-opposition would be material for the ...
Pritish Kumar Mitra Vs. Prosanto Kumar Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal236,74CWN272
Amaresh Roy, J.1. This Rule issued upon an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge of Alipore in a pending probate proceeding numbered as Other Suit No. 6 of 1969. In that proceeding Pritish Kumar Mitra has applied for grant of Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed propoundingtherein a Will which he alleges is the last testament of his uncle Probodth Kumar Mitra. When that proceeding was pending, the propounder Pritish Kumar Mitra made an application to Court stating that the requisite Court-fees have already been paid in a proceeding No. 131 of 1949 under Act XXXIX of 1925, and that he would deposit the ad valorem Court-fees on the Affidavit of Assets in the present proceeding at the appropriate stage. That matter was heard by the learned Additional District Judge on 14th of August, 1969.2. The background of that petition made by Pritish Kumar Mitra was that in the previous procee...
East India Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal243
Masud, J. 1. This application raises an important point of law which, on the facts of the present case, appears to be a matter of first impression. The petitioner company has made the present application under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for the appointment of one Mr. N. S. Tyebji, retired Chief Engineer, Eastern Railway as the Arbitrator in place of one of the appointed arbitrators Mr. K. Ramani. The circumstances under which this application has been moved may be stated as follows:--The petitioner entered into an agreement on February 2, 1963 with the respondent for construction of certain railway quarters at Dhanbad. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause which is Clause 63, the relevant provisions of which are stated below.'Arbitration: (a) Matters in question, dispute or differences to be arbitrated upon shall be referred for decision to:-- (i) ........................(ii) Two arbitrators who shall be Gazetted Officers of equal status to be appointed i...
Manmal Bhutoria Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal253,1974CriLJ92,74CWN465
ORDERK.L. Roy, J.1. This application raises an interesting point which, I am informed, is of the first impression. The petitioner, one Manmal Bhutoria, along with one C. E. Bhattacharjee, who was a Major in the Indian Army and who was invalidated from the Military Service with effect from the 14th February, 1966, were charged with an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Prevention Act) and by a notification in the Calcutta Gazettes dated the 15th June, 1967 the State Government allotted the case of the State v. (1) Ex-major Chittaranjan Bhattacharjee and (2) Manmal Bhutoria to the Calcutta Fourth Additional Special Court on a report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Division, Calcutta dated the 27th May, 1967. In the said report it was alleged that ex-Major Bhattacharjee, in collusion and conspiracy with the petitioner Manmal Bhutoria, had accepted certain tenders fro...
Md. Basir Vs. Noor Jahan Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: 1971CriLJ547
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. These two Rules are taken up together for disposal as these are interconnected and arise out of the same order dated the 4th December, 1968 passed by Sri. S. R. Bhowmick, Presidency Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta, Under Section 488 of the Criminal P.C., in case No. M/1023/67. The first Rule, being Criminal Revision case No. 1376 of 1968, is at the instance of the 2nd Party husband, Md. Basir, for setting aside the order of maintenance passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate of the sum of Rs. 350 per month payable to the 1st Party wife, Noor Jahan Begum, to take effect from the date of the order. The other Rule, being Criminal Revision Case No. 231 of 1969, is at the instance of the wife, Noor Jahan Begum, for setting aside the order passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, rejecting the petitioner's prayer for allowing maintenance also to her five daughters, living with her and for enhancing the quantum of maintenance.2. The back-drop of the case is se...
Commissioner of Income-tax, W.B. Iii Vs. Chunilal Prabhudas and Co. (D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Cal70,[1970]76ITR566(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. The statement of the case raises the following question for an answer by this Court :--'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that no capital gains could arise under Section 12-B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 out of the transfer by the firm of its assets and goodwill to the two private limited companies?'2. Before proceeding to answer this question it will be appropriate to reframe the question by dropping the words 'assets and' from the question because no argument has been advanced before us either on behalf of the assessee or the Commissioner on assets other than goodwill. The controversy is confined in this case only to goodwill and nothing else. In fact, no question arises with regard to other assets from the order of the Tribunal. The question re-framed, therefore, for the answer by this Court is as follows :--'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding ...
Gopal Das Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1969
Reported in: [1971]80ITR200(Cal)
1. By a notice in writing purported to be a summons under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the respondent, D. K. Guha, the Assistant Director of Inspection (Intelligence), Income-tax Department, required the petitioner personally to attend the office of the said respondent on the 21st June, 1968, as his attendance was required in connection with the proceedings under the Income-tax Act in the case of Aruna Estates Ltd., either personally or through an authorised representative to give evidence and to produce certain books of account and other documents specified overleaf. The petitioner was further notified that, in case of intentional omission to attend and give evidence as required, a fine up to Rs. 500 might be imposed under Section 131(2). The petitioner raised various objections to the saidnotice and the time for compliance was extended from time to time until finally, by his letter dated 25th June, 1968, the said respondent informed the petitioner that the said summons wa...
NitIn Chakravarti Vs. V.S.C. Bonarjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal477,74CWN958
ORDERBanerjee, J. 1. The Petitioner in this Rule challenges the order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal, whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt of the Court's order and punished for the same. It appears that it was brought to the notice of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue that a publication at p. 430 of the Bengali Weekly 'Amar Bangla' in its issue dated 13th May, 1965 containing matters in the editorial notes. The alleged offensive words in the publication were as follows :^^ike caxs jsOgU;w cksMZ-ife caxs jsOgsU;w cksMZj vfrfj lnL; feLVjfOg ,l- lh- cksuthZ lkgsc lsYl VSDl dfe'kujs jks,j fc:)s vihy 'kqfuckj HkkjikbZvk'ksu--- fdUrq rkgkj inuTtkZnkds lsYl VWDljs nkjksxkj itkZ;s ukekbZ;k vkfuvkNsu--- ljdkj if[[k; mdfy vs O;k[;k nsu r%gk;h veykuk cnus xzg.k djsu- lkgscsj jkods ,[kksu yksds dk tsj fopkj ckyh;k vfHkfgr dfjrs Ns----** 2. As soon as the said show cause notice was issued the petitioner mov...
Assam Consolidated Tea Estates Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: [1971]81ITR699(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. The petitioner in this application is the Assam Consolidated Tea Estates Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'English Company'), a company incorporated in England, which used to carry on business in the manufacture and sale of tea in India and Pakistan and owned several tea estates in these two countries and was assessed in respect of the income therefrom up to the 31st March, 1957. For carrying on the business more conveniently, the petitioner transferred its Indian assets including the tea estates situated in India to Assam Consolidated Tea Estates (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ' Indian company '), incorporated in the U.K. for that purpose with effect from the 1st April, 1957. The Indian company was a 100% subsidiary of the English company. The consideration for the transfer of the assets to the Indian company was 6,77,001) and the consideration was satisfied by the allotment to the English company of 4,77,000 ordinary shares of 1 each inthe Indian comp...
Sm. Kanak Lata Ghose Vs. Amal Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Cal328
A.C. Sen, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of marriage instituted by the respondent husband against the appellant wife. It is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 7, 1965 passed by the Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 8 of 1964.2. The husband made an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner husband and the respondent wife on the ground that the wife had failed to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights directing her to return to her husband and perform marital duties for a period of two years after the passing of the decree. The said application for divorce was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 8 of 1964. The said suit has been decreed by the trial Court. The wife has,therefore, preferred this appeal against the decree for divorce passed against her.3. The facts of the case are as follows;...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›