Kolkata Court January 1971 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.
Ranadeb Choudhuri Vs. Land Acquisition Judge, 24-parganas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal368,75CWN375
P.B. Mukharji, C.J. 1. This Rule under Article 228 of the Constitution of India raises an interesting question about the meaning and scope of the expression, 'a substantial question of law as to the Interpretation of this Constitution.' 2. The facts giving rise to this Rule are as follows:-- The petitioner is Ranadeb Choudhuri. The respondents are the Land Acquisition Judge. 24-Parganas, the Land Acquisition Collector, 24-Parganas, and the State of West Bengal through the Secretary, Land and Land Revenue Department. The petitioner's mother Sm. Sarasi Bala Devi (now deceased) was the owner of about 10 bighas (3.30 acres) of land in Jadavpur, Police station Tollygunge within the municipal jurisdiction of Calcutta Municipality. This land is said to be valuable. By Notification No. 13982 L. Dev, dated the 22nd July 1955, published in the Calcutta Gazette dated the 11th August, 1955, these lands were notified under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act (Act XXI of 1...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tea Estates India Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR705(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. This is a composite reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, to this court whereby a consolidated statement of the case has been submitted in response to applications by both the Commissioner and the assessee. The assessee is M/s. Tea Estates India Private Ltd. and the assessment year concerned is 1956-57, the corresponding accounting year ending on the 30th June, 1955. The assessee held 52,350 shares out of the total issued shares of 54,600 in M/s. Dibru Darrang Tea Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'D.D.T. Co.') and 22,998 shares out of the totalissued shares of 23,000 in M/s. Taikrong Tea Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'T.T. Co.'). The latter two companies were tea companies growing, manufacturing and selling tea for which purpose they owned large tea estates containing land, buildings, plant, machinery, etc. On the 11th August, 1947, the two tea companies sold their entire tea e...
Chitta Ranjan Mondal Vs. Bhupendranath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal543,76CWN779
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 10 in a suit for partition. The plaintiff is a purchaser of 4 annas share of Bhupendra Nath Das and others who were admittedly co-sharers of the properties in suit. So far as the plaintiff's share is concerned, there is no dispute that the plaintiff acquired the said 4 annas share. The defendant No. 10 in his written statement submitted that he was entitled to pre-empt the plaintiff's 4 annas share Under Section 4 of the Partition Act inasmuch as the suit property was home-stead of the parties, namely, the defendant No. 10 and his co-sharers. The learned Judge framed an issue being issue No. 2 as follows:--Is the contesting defendant No. 10 entitled to get relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act?'The defendant No. 10, however, did not make any application for pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act.2. By his judgment dated July 20, 1964, the learned Judge determined the shares of the parties. As to issue ...
Ram Chandra Sundarka Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1369
ORDERR.N. Dutt, J.1. This Rule is against an order of conviction and sentence Under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner stocked huge quantities of ampules of water for injection in a godown at 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road without a licence as required Under Section 18(c) of the Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. His defence was that he had a licence for storing and selling drugs from his shop at 43. Brojo Dulal Street under the Act, but at the relevant time the shop room was under repair and so he stored some ampules of water for injection in the godown at 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road. The learned Magistrate however convicted him and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner has thereafter obtained this Rule against this order of conviction and sentence.3. Mr. Dutta has first contended that the ampules of water for injection which were recovered from the godown at 357/8, Upper Chitpore Road are not 'dr...
Paramanand Lokumal and ors. Vs. Khudabadi Bhaibund Co-operative Credit ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal261,75CWN428
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. The predecessor of the applicants before us was a surety in respect of the debt of the predecessor in interest of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, on which the creditor respondent No. 1 obtained an award from the Arbitrator under the Bombay Cooperative Registration Act for Rupees 49410-12-9 P., comprising Rs. 46500/- on account of principal, Rs. 2888-2-9P on account of interest and Rs. 22-10-0P, on account of cost. The said amount of Rs. 49410-12-9P was thus due from the predecessor of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as principal debtors to the respondent No. 1 on 17th October, 1946, and from the appellants as surety. In respect of this claim, the said appellants applied for adjustment according to the provisions of Act 70 of 1951 (Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act of 1951) under its relevant section, namely, Section 5. In this application, the appellants claimed to be in the position of joint debtors along with respondents Nos. 2-4 with liability to the extent of 1/4th o...
Munshi HossaIn Baksh Vs. Khudiram Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal376,75CWN421
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by the tenant defendant in a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession on declaration of his title. The plaintiff's case is that one Krishnadhan Dey settled about 4 decimals of bastu land, being the suit land, to the defendant for a period of 7 years from Magh 1342 B.S. to Pous 1349 B.S. at a monthly rent of Rs. 3/- on the basis of a registered lease executed on Bhadra 5, 1343 B.S. The defendant had been since in possession of the said land on the basis thereof and there was an express stipulation in the lease that he would be entitled to raise only kutcha structure and never any pucca structures thereon nor he would acquire any permanent right. It was further provided therein that on the expiry of the lease he would be liable to vacate the land without any objection or pretext. By a deed of gift dated Aswin 13, 1346 B.S. the suit land was gifted to the plaintiff. After the expiry of the lease on Pous, 1349 B.S. the defendant ...
Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR26(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, this court has been invited to answer the following questions :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner's order dated the 28th December, 1963, under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, setting aside the assessments for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62 and directing the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessments was valid in law and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1956-57 on the 14th November, 1961, was invalid and that no fresh assessment could be made on the basis of the Commissioner's order under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for that year ' 2. The first question has been referred at the instance of the assessee and the second question of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›