Kolkata Court March 1971 Judgments
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Cal398
B.C. Mitra, J.1. A Company known as New Central Jute Mills Co, Ltd. owns and runs a factory by the name of Sahu Chemicals and Fertilisers at Varanasi. The appellant was the selling agent of the products of this Company including muriate of ammonia and fertiliser. By a notification dated May 28, 1962, Ammonia utilised in the manufacture of fertiliser is exempted, with effect from April 24, 1962, from so much of excise duty as is in excess of Rs. 25/- per metric tonne. The standard rate of duty of ammonia is Rs. 125/- per metric tonne.2. The Excise authorities brought to the notice of Sahu Chemicals and Fertilisers that muriate was distinct from fertiliser and that ammonia used in the manufacture of muriate of ammonia was not entitled to concessional rate and was subject to the standard rate of Rs. 125/- per metric tonne.3. According to the management of Sahu Chemicals and Fertilisers, there was no separate process in the manufacture of muriate of ammonia. The owners of the factory conte...
Tag this Judgment!Amal Kr. Ghatak and Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ248Cal
Anil Kr. Sen, J.1. These two rules were issued on two writ petitions. These rules have been heard together as they involve common questions of law on facts which are similar. Both the petitioners are the owners respectively of the two tea estates referred to in their petitions and both of them are challenging in their respective petitions orders passed by the State Government refusing to grant them the exemption prayed for under Section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.2. The petitioners' case is that they had been carrying on the business of producing tea under very adverse circumstances. They arc heavily indebted and they are maintaining their tea gardens under adverse economic circumstances due to low yield, poor quality of products, uneconomic areas, inaccessibility of the gardens and similar other circumstances. According to them in the reports of the National Council of Applied Economic Research it had been found that the petitioners are carrying on their business under heavy...
Tag this Judgment!Akram Sheikh and ors. Vs. Makid Sheikh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal405
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a judgment of reversal decreeing the plaintiffs' suit. The suit land is comprised in plot No, 1876 (tank) area 2.04 acres khatian 199 and plot No. 1875 (banks of the said tank) area .86 acre khatian 146 Mouja Gopigram P.S. Nabagram, District Murshidabad. The plaintiff's case is that he purchased the suit lands from pro forma defendant No. 12 on August 29, 1952 and had been in possession of the tank by rearing fish and its banks by growing trees and crops. There were ill feelings between the plaintiff and the said defendant and the principal defendants who were his labourers, on December 20, 1955, cut down trees on the eastern bank of the tank and started digging earth with the object of burying the wife of the defendant No. 1 at the instigation of the defendant No. 12. The plaintiff strenuously objected but to no effect. He started a criminal case but it failed and even during its pendency the defendants buried another...
Tag this Judgment!Nrimal Kumar Moulik and ors. Vs. Sm. Champabala Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal407,76CWN556
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 11 against a judgment of concurrence decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The suit property is comprised in C. S. Plot No. 1158, khatian No. 152 Mouza Noapara. P.S. Barasat. The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner of the lands mentioned above along with other adjacent lands. Her house is on the contiguous north of the suit land which was an adjunct of her residence. Plot No. 1159 is situated on the west of the suit land, also belonging to the plaintiff. She planned a residential colony known as 'Lakshminarayan colony' on her lands mentioned above and in the plan prepared by her for the purpose she loosely described the suit land as a Park, though it was never intended to be a Park in the true sense. The plaintiff had the desire to keep this land vacant for the purpose of sufficient air and light for her own residence and also for accommodation for ceremonial occasions usually held in the presence of Sri Sri Lakshmi...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR570(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1960-61. The relevant accounting period is the financial year ending March 31, 1960. The assessee is a company which has been carrying on business, inter alia, in the manufacture of jute goods. The assessee's business income was finally determined by the Tribunal's order of October 27, 1964, at Rs. 23,93,166. While giving effect to the Tribunal's order the Income-tax Officer set off the unabsprbed losses of 1956-57 and 1957-58 of Rs. 3,24,849 andRs. 20,68,317, respectively against the aforesaid business income.2. To the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee pointed out that the total loss determined for the assessment year 1956-57 was Rs, 10,54,686 and not Rs. 3,24,849 as taken by the Income-tax Officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, after verifying the figures, directed the Income-tax Officer to modify the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Prasad Surajlal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Cal321
ORDERS.K. Chakravarti, J. 1. This Rule was issued at the instance of a plaintiff whose suit for damages against the Union of India representing the Railways was dismissed by the courts below on the ground that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the quantum and extent of actual loss. A consignment of onions was booked atNasik Road Railway Station on the 17th of November. 1962 and when the consignment reached Kharagpur on the 6th of December, 1962, it was found that a portion of the same had been damaged. The Inspector of Railways granted a damage certificate to the extent of 20 per cent, on 136 bags and 5 per cent, on 197 hags. The plaintiff claimed damages for this loss. Both the courts below have found that the Railways were responsible for this damage but they held, specially on the authority of the decision in Union of India v. Shew Bux Satyanarayan, : AIR1965Cal636 . that it was the duty of the plaintiff to prove the actual loss and damages as to the quantity and extent and a...
Tag this Judgment!i.C.i. (India) Private Ltd. Vs. the 2nd Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1971
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ462Cal
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In April, 1965, the I.C.I. and Associated Companies Employees' Union, being the respondent No. 3 herein, presented to I.C.I. (India) Private Ltd. being the petitioner herein, a charter of demands. The said charter resulted in a settlement dated 13th April, 1966. The question in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is, are the persons belonging to the 'Lady Staff of the petitioner covered by the said terms of settlement? The union contends that they are; the company disputes that. The said settlement covered the workmen of the petitioner; so the question is, are the members of the 'Lady Staff' workmen as contemplated by that settlement? In view of this difference there was a reference by the Government under Section 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the second Industrial Tribunal. The following question was referred, 'whether the Lady Staff who perform the duties of workmen, namely, stenographer, filing clerks, tele printer operators...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Gangabishan Banshilal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Cal141,75CWN730
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant. Union of India as owning the concerned railway against a judgment and decree of reversal decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's case is that a consignment of 7 bales of cotton piece goods of which the plaintiff was the owner, was delivered to the railway at Ahmedabad on March 23. 1959 for carriage and delivery to Shalimar. Six bales of goods were delivered but one bale was not delivered to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff on due service of requisite notices instituted the instant suit on June 9. 1960 claim-ins damages for non-delivery of the goods valuing the suit at Rs. 1062.75 P as the value of the goods together with the excise_ duty, freight and higher market price. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement contending inter alia that the plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the suit and the requisite notices were not legal- valid or sufficient and not properly ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhaniram Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. (No. 1)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: [1973]89ITR281(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, Shri Dhaniram Gupta, the petitioner herein, challenges the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66, and the notice of demand in respect of the same. It appears that Dhaniram Gupta was a partner of the firm of Dhaniram Gupta & Co. This application is in respect of the individual assessment of Dhaniram Gupta. There are certain allied applications which I shall dispose of by separate judgments hereinafter in respect of the firm. Some confusion has been created by inter-relating the facts of these two assessments. However, it will be necessary to refer briefly to the facts. It appears that Messrs. S. K. Sawday & Co., a firm dealing in tax matters, was acting for Dhaniram Gupta at the initial stages of assessment and of this application. Thereafter, there was a change. On the 28th June, 1965, the petitioner individually filed a return of income ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhaniram Gupta and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. (No. 2)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: [1973]89ITR288(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the assessment order under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the firm, Dhaniram Gupta & Co., for the assessment year 1965-66. The main ground urged in this application was that documents have been seized by the income-tax department under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, as such, it was not possible to comply with the notice under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. I am unable to accept this contention. It has to be further noted that the order under Section 132 has not been challenged in this application. Merely because there has been a seizure under Section 132, in my opinion, Sections 143 and 144 of the Income-tax Act do not become inapplicable. The notice that was given in this case was a notice which could have been reasonably complied with if the petitioner had availed itself of the provisions of Sections 132(9) and 132(10) of the Inc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »