Kolkata Court February 1971 Judgments
SerajuddIn and Co. Vs. the State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal414
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner, Serajuddin & Co., a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. 1932, disputes the validity of an order dated September 22, 1967 passed by the Secretary, Department of Mining & Geology, Government of Orissa.2. In order to appreciate the challenge and the true nature of the order impugned in this writ petition it would be necessary to recount in short the facts which led to the said order. On December 3. 1949 the respondent No, 1. State ofOrissa, invited application from the petitioner for grant of a mining lease under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules of 1949). Such Rules were framed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 5 of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1948 (Act 53 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948). Both the Act and the Rules were subsequently replaced by new ones viz.. Mines & Minerals (Regulation & ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganashyamdas Jatia and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR683(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. One Kanailall Jatia, since deceased, was assessed on a total income of Rs. 87,269 in respect of the assessment year 1945-46 under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. On the 29th March, 1956, notice under Section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was served on the said Kanailall Jatia for reopening the said assessment. The said service of the notice was effected by affixation. On the 12th July, 1956, notice under Section 22(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 192^ was served on Kanailall Jatia, since deceased. On the 19th January, 1958, Kanailall Jatia died leaving the petitioners, his heirs and legal representatives. On the 4th October, 1958, an ex parte order of assessment was made on Kanailall Jatia, since deceased, under Section 34(1A) read with Section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on a total income of Rs. 22,00,135-46. On the 7th November, 1958, notice of demand under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the na...
Tag this Judgment!The Asansol Electric Supply Co. and ors. Vs. Chunnilal Daw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal19
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by a public company, the Asansol Electric Supply Company Ltd. and its four Directors against a judgment and decree of affirmance. The plaintiff Chunilal Das, as an employee of the company instituted a suit inter alia for a declaration that certain resolutions purported to have been passed by the Board of Directors of the Company as also by its shareholders were illegal, void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and also for some other reliefs. The plaintiff's case in short is that he was firstly appointed a Manager of the Company which appointment was confirmed by a special resolution passed at its General Meeting held on September 25, 1957 of the shareholders of the company, the plaintiff's designation was however changed from Manager to Supervisor, and, the remuneration fixed was Rs. 750/- per month with effect from January, 1958 and of annual increment of Rupees 10/- and dearness allowance of Rs. 180/-per month unless otherwise dete...
Tag this Judgment!Kamal Singh Kothari and anr. Vs. Khemchand Rajkumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal479
ORDERS.K. Chakravarti, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the plaintiffs in respect of an order passed by the Full Bench in the Small Cause Court, Calcutta by which it dismissed the plaintiffs' claim to the enhanced portion of the occupier's share of taxes from the opposite party. The oppositeparty is admittedly a tenant under the petitioners and the rent was Rs. 102/- per mensem besides electricity charges. The petitioners filed a suit against the opposite party claiming the electric charges due and also a sum of Rs. 183.60 as the enhanced portion of the occupier's share of taxes for three years at the rate of Rs. 5.10p per month. The learned Judge in the trial Court rejected this portion of the claim which was also upheld by the Full Bench. Hence this application, 2. The plaint does not disclose that there was any liability on the part of the defendant to pay the occupier's share of the taxes. On the other hand the plaint proceeds on the basis that the rent was inclusive o...
Tag this Judgment!General Council of the Church of India and anr. Vs. Niranjan Ghose and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal471,75CWN489
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This is an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865 for transfer of a suit from the City Civil Court at Calcutta to the High Court.2. An important point of law has been argued in this case and it is necessary to decide the said point before the facts are gone into. The point involved relates to the High Court's power to exercise its extraordinary original jurisdiction conferred by Clause 13 of the Letters Patent 1865 over the suits filed in the City Civil Court in view of certain provisions being amendedby the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act 1969 being West Bengal Act XXXV of 1969 which came into force on 14th November 1969. By the said Amendment Act amongst other amendments Section 9 of the City Civil Court Act has been omitted and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court has been raised from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-.3. This point could not be raised earlier because under the provision of Section 9 thereof suits and proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Khemka and anr. Vs. Jagadish Narayana Bhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal322,75CWN573
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an application for condonation of the delay in making an application for review under Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, and for an order that the memorandum of Review presented to the Registrar on September 29. 1970, but returned by him, with the endorsement 'out of time', be admitted. Before proceeding any further I should note that this is a third of a series of attempts to reopen an order made by consent of parties and on the basis of terms of settlement put in by them on July 9. 1970. The object of the review application is to obtain variation and alteration in the terms agreed upon between the parties by increasing the price of the shares in the capital of a Joint Stock Company known as Associated Industrial Development Co. Private Ltd. The circumstances in which the first application was made by the petitioner has been set out in paragraph 48 of the petition. That application was made on September 15, 1970, and was disposed of on September 28. 1970. T...
Tag this Judgment!Tarulata Shyam and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: [1971]82ITR485(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. The assessee and the original applicant in this reference was one P. C. Shyam who died during the pendency of the reference and his heirs and legal representatives have been substituted in his place as the applicants.2. The assessee was substantial shareholder and managing director of Duiaguri Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. Admittedly, the company is one in which the public are not substantially interested within the meaning of Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). The reference concerns the assessment year 1957-58, the corresponding previous year being the calender year 1956. At the commencement of that year there was a credit balance of Rs. 65,246 in the assessee's account in the books of the said company brought forward from the earlier year. Between the 11th January and the 12th November the cash withdrawals by the assessee from the company amounted to Rs. 4,97,442. Deducting therefrom the opening credit balance of Rs. 65,246 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chandra Dutta Vs. Chunilal Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal150
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. 1. The plaintiff-respondents brought a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for ejectment against their tenant who is appellant before me for ejectment and recovery of khas possession of the premises described in the schedule to the plaint. The learned Judge. 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta has decreed the said suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and the defendant tenant has preferred this appeal.2. Mr. Banerjee, the learned advocate for the respondents has submitted before me that this appeal is not maintainable in law. According to Mr. Banerjee the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, is a self-contained code and no appeal has been provided against a decree for recovery of khas possession of a premises passed by a Court competent to entertain or try such a suit under Section 20 of the said Act.3. In this connection Mr. Banerjee has also drawn my attention to the schedule of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Section 22 of the City Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Biswapati Dey Vs. Kennsington Stores and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal172
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J.1. The short but important point involved in this execution application is about the meaning of the expression 'when the decree or order be-comes enforceable' as provided in the third column of Article 136 of the Limitation Act of 1963. By the said provision 12 years' time has been given for the execution of a decree. The said Article provids :'136. Forthe execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction)or order of anycivil Court.Twelve years.When the decree or orderbecomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent orderdirects any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at acertain date or at recurring periods when default in making the payment or deliveryin respect of which execution is sought takes place; provided that anapplication for the enforcement Or execution of a decree granting a perpetualinjunction shall not be subject to any period oflimitation.2. On behalf of the decree-holder It is argu...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Customs, Calcutta and ors. Vs. Biswanath Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal401,75CWN797,(1972)ILLJ34Cal
P.B. Mukharji, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order passed by T.K. Basil J., in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. This was an application by Biswanath Mukherjee challenging the order dated February 6, 1968 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta whereby the petitioner was removed from service. The only point on which the learned judge decided the whole application was whether the charge-sheet was defective or not, leaving the other points undecided. The decision appealed from was based entirely on the interpretation of two expressions 'found' and 'giving rise to presumption' in the charge-sheet The charge-sheet reads as follows:--'That Sri Biswanath Mukherjee, who had been functioning as Preventive Officer, Grade I, during the period between 20-12-58 and 31-12-59, was found on 1-1-60 to be in possession of assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of about Rs. 61,000/- giving rise to the presumption that the aforesaid S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »