Kolkata Court March 1972 Judgments
Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. Vs. Haridas Mundhra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal119
ORDERS.K. Hazra, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff company for condonation of delay in making this application or forextension of time to make this application, for setting aside the abatement of this suit, if any. for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 6, Rai Bahadur Manturam Tapuria and for amendment of the plaint end other reliefs,2. The defendant No. 6, Rai Bahadur Manturam Tapuria died on June 24, 1966 leaving his wife, Sm. Suniti Tapuria end two sons. Motilal Tapuria and Kasfai-nath Tapuria as his heirs and legal representatives. This application has been made on December 24. 1971- The question in this application is whether after such a length of time the Court will grant the pravers of the petitioner by setting aside the abatement and substituting the heirs and legal representatives of tile deceased defendant No. 6. It is necessary to set out certain facts relating to the suit and this application, in order to decide whe...
Tag this Judgment!Dwijapada Haldar Vs. Prafulla Chandra Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal409,76CWN784
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerjee, J. 1. This Rule is directed against an appellate order passed in an appeal under Section 9(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. A short and interesting point arises for consideration in the present Rule is, whether an application for pre-emption under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is liable to be rejected when a co-sharer of a holding made a short deposit of the consideration money at the time of filing such application. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Act and deposited Rs. 750/- being the value of the land as stated in the kobala, hut he did not deposit Rs. 250/- being the value of the structure mentioned in the Conveyance because, according to him, there was no structure on the land, as such the value of the structure stated in the kobala was a fictitious one. The Revenue Officer dismissed the petitioner's application for preemption on two grounds viz., that t...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Home Department and ors. V ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal220
P.B. Mukharji, C.J.1. I have read the judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother B. C. Mitra, J. I agree and concur with his views. I wish, however, to add the following observations.2. The Government of West Bengal through its Home Secretary and others are the appellants. The petitioner in the trial Court is the respondent in this appeal. The respondent made an application for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for a writ of mandamus, certiorari and prohibition for quashing the order for reversion or reduction in rank dated the 9th July, 1954, and notified in the notification in the Calcutta Police Gazette dated the 19th July, 1954, to the subordinate rank of Inspector of Police, Calcutta.3. The respondent was first appointed to the Calcutta Police on the 10th November, 1925, as a Sub-Inspector of Police.In 1939, the petitioner commenced officiating as Inspector of the Calcutta Police. On the 27th February. 1942, the respondent's name was empanelled in t...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Labanya Bala Debi Vs. Sm. Parul Bala Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal367,77CWN272
A.K. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant appellant against an appellate judgment and decree of reversal.2. The plaintiffs respondents filed a suit for partition of C. S. Plot No. 1356 measuring more or less 5 cottahs of land appertaining to Khatian No. 344 of Mouza Jainagore. This plot belonged to one Kedar Sadbukhan who sold in specific portions the entire plot by different registered documents of conveyance to the predecessors of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and to the respondent No. 3 and to the father of respondent No. 4 and the predecessors of the present appellant Labanyabala, the defendant No. 3 in the original suit. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants are co-sharers but as it was not possible to possess the property jointly partition of the property is necessary.3. Defendant No. 3 the present appellant who alone contested the suit filed a written statement denying all material allegations. Her specific case is that she purchased 3 cottahs 9 chittaks of land wit...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Siewart and Dholakia Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: [1974]95ITR573(Cal)
A.N. Sen, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The assessee, M/s. Siewart & Dholakia (P.) Ltd., is a private limited company and its main activity is acting as tea brokers and tea agents for foreign buyers. One of the assessee's principal foreign constituents was M/s. Joseph Tetley & Co. Ltd. of London for whom the assessee acted as the sole buying agent of tea on commission. One Mr. R. T. Gardner was employed by the assessee on the recommendation of M/s. Joseph Tetley & Co. Ltd. as a tea tester for a term of three years from April, 1951. There was, however, no written agreement of service between the assessee-company and Mr. Gardner. In November, 1952, Mr. Gardner left the assessee's service after giving one mouth's notice and took employment with M/s. Duncan Bros. Ltd., a well-known firm of tea brokers of Calcutta. Shortly thereafter, M/s. Joseph Tetley & Co. Ltd. transferred their business from the assessee to M/s. Duncan Bros. Ltd. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hind Commercial Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1972
Reported in: [1974]96ITR722(Cal)
Masud, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the question of law which is referred to this court is as follows:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that renewal of registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was wrongly refused to the firm for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 '2. By a deed of partnership executed in September, 1950, a partnership consisting of Sri B. M. Kharukha and Mrs. Kharukha, niece-in-law of Sri B. M. Kharukha, and Sri K. A. Choudhury was constituted. Each of the said three partners under the said deed had equal shares of the profit and loss of the firm. The firm was duly granted registration under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1957-58. For the assessment year 1958-59, the Income-tax Officer refused renewal of registration to the firm on the ground that the partnership ...
Tag this Judgment!Tirthapada Nag and ors. Vs. Ram Babu Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal411,77CWN483
Mitra, J. 1. This Rule is against an order of the Second Additional District Judge at Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 262 of 1966. The order was made on the 18th September, 1967.2. On the 30th March, 1950 the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act 1950 came into force. Section 9 (1) (f) of the Act reads thus:--'In any of the following cases, the Controller shall on application by any landlord or tenant, fix the standard rent as set forth hereunder:-- Where any premises have been wholly or substantially constructed after the 31st day of December, 1949, by fixing the standard rent payable for one year at a rate not less than four per centum and not more than six per centum of the reasonable costs of construction added to the reasonable price of the land included in the premises as on the date of commencement of such construction taking into account the prevailing rate of rent in the locality for similar accommodation with similar advantages and amenities and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Manjusha Debi Vs. Sunil Chandra Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal310
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. 1. This appeal is by the plaintiff No. 1. It arises out of a suit brought by her and one Sambhu Mukherjee for a declaration that premises No. 51/A & B. Lansdowne Road were Debuttar properties of the deities. Sree Durgajee and Sree Baraha Kaliiee and, they were the respective Shebaits.2. The plaintiff No. 1 is a granddaughter (daughter's daughter) of Kalidashi Devi who executed a Will, by which, she dedicated 51/B, Lansdowne Road, to the deity -- Sree Dursaiee, and appointed her only daughter Durgarani, the Shebait and after her death, her daughter, -- the plaintiff No. 1. The premises No. 51/A, Lansdowne Road was dedicated to the deity Sree Baraha Kalijee and Sambhu Nath Mukheriee, her grandson (son of the defendant No. 1) was appointed a Shebait. After the death of Kalidashi Devi, who died on the 24th of November, 1949, plaintiff No. 1 applied for letter of administration in respect of the will of the said Kalidashi. Three days thereafter, defendant No. 3 brou...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Kumar Karnani Vs. Lahori Ram Prasher
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal465
Hazra, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff is claiming a decree for Rs. 17,684.22 paise. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant executed at Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court, two promissory Notes dated March 21, 1958 for Rs. 5,000/-and September 8, 1958 for Rs. 12,000/- respectively. In acknowledgment of receipt of the said two sums of Rs. 5,000/- and Rupees 12,000/- the defendant executed two receipts and/or vouchers on March 21, 1958 and September 8, 1958, at Calcutta within the said jurisdiction. In or about January, 1961, the said two promissory Notes were lost and/or misled and the plaintiff has not been able to trace the same. Thereafter, on March 14, 1961 the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that the said promissory notes had been lost and/or misled and called upon the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount due on the promissory notes and offered to indemnify the defendant against any further claim thereof. The defendant failed to pay the amount due on...
Tag this Judgment!Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Income-tax Officer, b Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1972
Reported in: 76CWN767,[1974]93ITR130(Cal)
Ajay K. Basu, J.1. This is a rule issued by my learned brother, A. K. Sinha J., on 21st April, 1971, at the instance of the petitioner calling upon the respondent, inter alia, to show cause why the notice dated 30th March, 1971, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1962-63 by the respondent, Income-tax Officer 'B' Ward, Central Salary Circle, should not be cancelled, withdrawn or rescinded.2. The petitioner contends that the Income-tax Officer had assumed jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act on the ground of reconsidering salary income of the petitioner to be taken on 'due basis'. In that event, the petitioner submits that on a thorough examination of the material produced by the petitioner at the time of the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer before making the assessment was fully satisfied about the said material. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the purported action of the respondent No. 1 to assess the salary income of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »