Kolkata Court July 1970 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.
Shanti Ranjan Bhattacharya Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal557,[1971]41CompCas234(Cal),1970CriLJ1635
R.N. Dutt, J.1. The petitioner is on his trial before a Special Court at Alipore for an alleged offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The instant case was allotted to the Special Court by a notification of the State Government and the Special Court took cognizance on a petition of complaint filed before it by the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner raised an objection before the Special Court that the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the instant case. But the Judge presiding over the Special Court has found that he has jurisdiction. The petitioner has thereafter obtained this Rule for quashing the proceeding pending before the Special Court against him.3. The allegations are in short as follows:--3-A. The petitioner was the Secretary of Mahasakti Samabaya Samiti, a registered Co-operative Society. While working as such Secretary the petitioner is said to have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 14,432.92p. The Special Court will have jurisdiction ...
Bibhuti Bhusan Dey Vs. Bankim Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal203
A.K. Sinha, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the judgment-debtor petitioner against an appellate order refusing to set aside an auction sale under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, --the judgment being one of affirmance.2. The petitioner is one of the judgment-debtors and it is alleged in his petition under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the disputed property was not properly described in the sale proclamation which was fraudulently suppressed and, on account of such suppression, the property has been sold at an inadequately low price resulting in substantial injuries to the petitioner. The opposite party No. 1 is the auction-purchaser and the opposite party No. 2 is the decree-holder. Both of them opposed this application.3. The executing court dismissed the application on the view that none of the grounds taken were proved. On a finding that at the time of the issue of the sale proclamation both parties gave their own valuation as to the property ...
indu Bhusan De and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1972Cal160,75CWN236
Sabyasachi Mukharjee, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order and judgment of P.K. Banerji, J. dated 25th November. 1969 rejecting the petitioners' application under Article 226 of the Constitution without issuing a rule nisi. The petitioners are the three practising attorneys of this High Court, and in the petition there was a prayer for leave under Order 1. Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During the hearing of this appeal, learned Advocate for the petitioners, abandoned the prayer for leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application has therefore been treated as an application by the three named petitioners in their individual capacity and not in their representative capacity. In the application the petitioners challenge the establishment of City Civil Court by the Calcutta City Civil Court Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act No. XXI of 1953) and the amendment of the said Act by the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act. 1969 being West Bengal Act XXXV of 1969 a...
Mahmudabad Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1970
Reported in: [1972]85ITR500(Cal)
T.M. Basu, J.1. This income-tax reference raises interesting questions with regard to the valuation of a 'capital asset' for computing capital gains in income-tax law.2. The question which this court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and which has been so referred by the Tribunal is in the following terms :'Was there a valid and legal basis for the Tribunal's conclusion that capital gain arising out of the sale of the property at No. 221, Russa Road, Calcutta, would be Rs. 75,000 instead of a loss of Rs. 6,000 as claimed by the assessee?'3. The facts leading to the instant reference may be briefly noted.4. The assessee is a company in voluntary liquidation. The assessment year involved is 1962-63 for which the relevant financial year is the calendar year 1961.5. In the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee had declared loss under the head 'capit...
Assam Oil Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1970
Reported in: [1971]82ITR62(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J. 1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the U. K. Companies Act and has its principal place of business of India atDigboi in the State of Assam. It carries on business, inter alia, in oils andlubricants. In its assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act thepetitioner claimed deduction of certain expenses as administrative chargesincurred by the Burma Oil Company Ltd. of London as the Londonmanagement fee payable by the petitioner and debited in its account. Itappears that from the assessment year 1951-52, the question of allowanceof this claim was being discussed between the petitioner and the taxing authority. For instance, in its letter dated the 20th February, 1953, to theIncome-tax Officer, Dibrugarh, who was then making the petitioner'sassessments to income-tax, it was explained that the London charges represented the charge made by the Burma Oil Company for management andsecretarial work carried out on behalf of the petitioner in London and thecharge was fo...
Muni Lal Shaw Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ147
ORDERS.N. Bagchi, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the State and the opposite parties and examined the records with their assistance.2. The petitioner-accused is Minilal Shaw. The police after investigation submitted a charge sheet against him for the alleged commission of an offence punishable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. There was an enquiry by a learned Magistrate Under Section 207A of the Criminal P.C. The learned Magistrate perused the documents and examined five witnesses and heard the parties and committed the accused-petitioner to take his trial on the charge Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code before the Sessions Judge, Midnapore.3. The accused-petitioner's grievance is that the charge sheeted four eye witnesses had not been examined by the learned Magistrate and that Buch failure to examine those eye witnesses by the learned Magistrate vitiated the proceedings of commitment and pretended abuse of the process of law. Dr. Mani Ghosh, Sarada Marathin, S...
Satyanarayan Nathany and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal167
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances: On March 12, 1942, the appellants premises No. 20, Dum Dum Road was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act (Rule 76) on and from March 16, 1942. On June 10, 1943, there was a further order of requisition in respect of the same premises with effect from June 11, 1943, and the monthly compensation for the above requisition or requisitions was fixed at Rs. 1,765/-. On November 12, 1946, the above property was derequisitioned. This was followed by a claim for terminal compensation, made by the appellant, in respect of damages, done to the above property by the Requisitioning Authority during the above period of requisition. The appellants' figure for the said claimwas Rs. 4,37,106/-. The State's offer on the point was Rs. 44,355/-. The above claim was made on April 1, 1947, and the same was reiterated on March 23, 1954, As, however, the State did not agree to the appellants' above figure, there was the inevit...
Bata Shoe Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1970
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT501(Cal)
P.K. Banerjee, J.1. In this Rule, the petitioner challenged an order of assessment passed by the respondents and prays for quashing and setting aside the demand dated 24th November, 1964, and the appellate order dated 14th March, 1966, and also for refund of a sum of Rs. 73,846.62 paise alleged to have been illegally lealised from the petitioner. It appears that a show cause notice was issued on the petitioner calling upon them to show cause why the 'Toe Cap Sheet Solution' should not be treated as 'N.C. Lacquer' and on that basis excise duty should not be levied. It appears that in levying the excise duty, the respondents considered the Chemical Examiner's report without giving a copy of that report to the petitioners. It is agreed that principles of natural justice have not been followed in coming to a decision in the matter regarding the manufacture of 'Toe Cap Solution'. In that view of the matter, the demand dated 24th November, 1964, and the appellate order dated 14th March, 1966...
In Re: Miss Phyllis Weber (insolvent), Ex. Parte Miss Phyllis Weber
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1970
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ162Cal
ORDERA.N. Sen, J.1. In the Matter of Miss Phyllis Weber (Insolvent), Ex. Parte Miss Phyllis Weber. The principal question that falls for determination in the present application is whether any amount payable by the employer as bonus to an employee who happens to be an undischarged insolvent, vests in the Official Assignee or not.2. Miss Phyllis Weber, the applicant herein, works as a Steno-Typist under Indian Oxygen Limited of No. 5, Mayurbhanj Road, Calcutta. On her own application presented on the 17th of March, 1967, she was adjudicated as an insolvent by an order made by this Court on the 21st of March, 1967. At all material times she was and she still continues to be an undischarged insolvent. After her adjudication as insolvent the applicant has been paying to the Official Assignee a sum of Rs. 100 per month voluntarily and without any order of Court for payment to the creditors of the insolvent. The liability of the insolvent is well over Rs. 20,000/-, a good part whereof has al...
Liquidator, Mahmudabad Properties Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1970
Reported in: [1972]83ITR470(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, C.J.1. The Tribunal has referred in this income-tax reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question for decision by this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the interpretation of Sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the income from property the bona fide annual value of the property at 3, Gun Foundry Road, Calcutta, has not to be taken and in disallowing the vacancy remission and other deductions in respect of the aforesaid property 'Even though the words of the question are not as clear as they could and should be, it is plain what the question asks. The question is whetherthere is an annual value of premises No. 3, Gun Foundry Road, Calcutta, and whether it is to be taken into account under Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has held that such a property is outside the scope of Section 22 of the Act. The second part of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »