Kolkata Court February 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.
Himangsu Sekhar Paul Vs. Kishori Lal Paul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal77
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This matter has come up before me lor review of taxation of the Bill of Cost No. 272 of 1967 and for an order, inter alia for varying and/or setting aside the findings of the Taxing Officer given on 12th August, 1970. The matter in question arises out of an application made before A. N. Sen J. by one of the parties herein claiming the following reliefs :-- (a) Time to file the report by the Special Referee be extended by two months from date of the order to be made hereon; (b) The Special Referee be directed to proceed with the reference in terms of the consent decree and orders dated 8th March, 1965 and 26th August, 1965) (c) That the Special Referee be directed to follow the procedure laid down by the reference rules of this Court and in the Code of Civil Procedure : (d) The Special Referee do proceed with reference in respect of matters and/or issues which arise under the consent decree and not to bring in matters which are beyond the scope of enq...
Sitaram Jindal Vs. Income-tax Officer, e Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR162(Cal)
Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the writ constitutional jurisdiction of this court, inter alia, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel or withdraw or rescind the notice dated 28th March, 1970, issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62, for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing or setting aside the said notice arid also for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect to the said notice dated 28th March, 1970, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the said assessment year 1961-62.2. The petitioner at all material times carried on business in co-partnership under the name and style of Jai Bharat Industries, Hissar, in the State of Haryana. The petitioner also used at all material times to carry on business in speculation in shar...
Mathura Prosad Rajgharia and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Cal288
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appealarises out of Order No. 250, dated August 2, 1957, of the President Calcutta Improvement Tribunal rejecting the application of the appellants whereby they askedfor payment of the whole of the enhanced amount of compensation.2. The appellants Mathura Prasad Rajgharia and others were lessees of Premises No. 1. Bahir Surah Road, Calcutta, under one Madhushudan Banerjee and Sm. Surabala Devi, for a term of sixty years under a registered lease dated September 20, 1927. Under the terms of the lease, the appellants had the option to purchase the lessors' interest in the demised property at any time within ten years from the date of the, lease. It was further provided in the lease that in the event of acquisition of the demised property, both the lessors and the lessees shall be entitled to the compensation that would be payable to them respectively.3. The premises was acquired by the Government after the publication of the statutory notification and declaration. The...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Khalilur Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal347
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Union of India against the judgment and decree of reversal decreeing the plaintiff's suit for compensation for damages in transit of a consignment of mangoes.2. According to the plaint, a consignment of 451 baskets of mangoes was booked on May 13, 1956 at Coconada port for delivery at Shalimar. Normally the time taken for delivery was 5/6 days but the consignment, in the instant case, was seriously delayed in transit due to the negligence of the railway with the result that the consignment arrived at destination on May 25, 1956 in damaged and decomposed condition. Assessment delivery was taken and damage assessed by the Railway was 75%. The plaintiff accordingly suffered loss for Rs. 2875-2-0. Requisite notices under the law were served on the General Managers of the Railways concerned and as the amount claimed was not paid the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff as the consignee, for valuable consideration.3. The defendant, th...
G. Ambalal (Export) Private Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Collector of Custom ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal444
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The petitioner at all material times carried on business in jute goods. In the course of the said business the petitioner entered into several contracts with one Reliance Commercial Corporation, Bombay, for file sale of hessian cess bags. The said contracts with Reliance were on F.O.B. basis. The said Reliance Commercial Corporation, Bombay, it has been alleged, in its turn used to enter into contracts with the foreign buyers. According to the petitioner's case the petitioner had nothing to do with the contracts of Reliance Commercial Corporation, Bombay, with the foreign buyers. I am not here concerned actually whether the petitioner had anything to do with the foreign buyers and I do not decide that question. From the tenor of the show cause notice it appears that it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner had something to do with the sale to the foreign buyers but as mentioned hereinbefore, I do not decide this question in this application. ...
Muktipada Ghosh and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal451
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. These five rules which were issued on five petitions under Article 226(1) of the Constitution are heard together as they involve common questions of law. Facts are all same or similar. The first petitioner in each of these cases is the son of the second petitioner and the second petitioner is the same person in all these cases.2. The petitioners in these rules are challenging notices dated October 24, 1968 purported to have been issued in a proceeding started suo motu by the Revenue Officer under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the proceedings started thereon. Notices are the same in all the five cases except as to the number of the proceedings and plots involved.3. The petitioners' case in each of these rules shortly is that the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of the land set out in paragraph 5 of the petition and that hisname had been duly recorded in the finally published record of rights...
Jatindra Nath Paramanick Vs. Debiprasad Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal539,75CWN508
ORDERS.K. Chakravarti, J.1. These two Rules were issued at the instance of some thika tenants and have been heard together as they arise out of the same order of a learned Controller and as common questions of law and facts are involved. The opposite party filed proceedings for eviction against the petitioners under Clause (iv) of Section 3 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, as it stood before the amendment, only on the ground that the land comprised in the holding was required by the landlord for the purpose of building on it. The applications were allowed with a direction that the order of eviction will be operative upon payment of adequate compensation agreed upon by the parties or ascertained through a Commissioner. Thereafter a Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of determination of compensation and while the proceedings were going on before the Commissioner, the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Stay of Proceedings (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance 1967 came into force and by an order...
Bijoy Kumar Burman Vs. Income-tax Officer, e Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1971
Reported in: [1972]84ITR71(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. It appears that one Raja Burman died sometime in 1923 leaving considerable properties to his sons, including his son, Narayandas Burman, the father of the petitioner. The said Narayandas Burman died in 1939 leaving again considerable properties to his wife and three sons including the petitioner. They constituted a joint Hindu undivided family. On 27th January, 1949, a partition suit was filed. Thereafter, it appears that a receiver was appointed by this court over the said properties. On 11th July, 1949, this court in the said partition suit, being Suit No. 330 of 1949, passed a preliminary decree declaring, inter alia, that Shri Bijoy Kumar Burman, being the petitioner herein, was entitled to one equal fourth part or share of the joint family properties and the other members of the family were also each entitled to one-fourth part or share thereof, Thereafter, for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1959-60, the petitioner was assessed as an individual with one-...
Hemanta Kumar Dey Vs. Taramani Devi Tibriwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Cal144,76CWN710
ORDERSantosh Kumar Chakravarti, J.1. An application under Order 21, Rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been filed by the opposite party No 1 on the 2nd August, 1968 and the allegations are that she was dispossessed from the premises in question on the 25th May 1968 but she came to know about it only ten days before the 2nd of August, 1968, as she was at Kathamandu. The decree-holder, who is the petitioner before me, contended that the application was time barred not having been filed within thirty days from the date of dispossession and prayed to the Court that this point may be taken up at a preliminary hearing of the issues. The court below did not accede to that prayer, even allowed the prayer of the opposite party No. 1 to be examined on commission and then wanted to take down the evidence on all the points end then dispose of the point of limitation also along with the other issues. The decree holder has come up against that order in this rule.2. It is clear that such an ...
Lalua Shaw Vs. Anil Bh. Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal330
Santosh Kumar Chakravarti, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a defendant in an ejectment proceeding under the Thika Tenancy Act and is directed against an order of the learned Thika Tenancy Controller, Howrah, by which he rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 7-A of the Act as also his petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A such an application has to be filed within sixty days from the date of the commencement of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act. 1969. In this particular case the petition was filed on the 30th of May, 1970 though this Act had come into operation on the 30th of October. 1969. The petitioner filed another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the learned Judge was not satisfied about the grounds of delay and he dismissed that application and also the application under Section 7-A on the ground that it is time-barred.2. Without going into the propriety of this o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »