Kolkata Court March 1972 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.
Probodh Chandra Sett Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'C' Ward and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal417,[1975]98ITR273(Cal)
P.B. Mukharh, C.J.1. The appellant made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution raising a question of interpretation of Section 297(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act of 1961.2. For the assessment year 1961-62 the appellant filed his return voluntarily on December 1, 1961. On February 1, 1963, a notice under Section 23 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was issued and served on the appellant. On March 17, 1966, a further notice under Section 23 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was issued calling upon the appellant to attend on March 22, 1966 for completion of the assessment. On March 23, 1966 the appellant informed the Income-tax Officer that as the aforesaid notice was served on the appellant after 1 P.M. it was not possible for him to comply with it. Thereafter on December 31, 1966, a notice under Section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued by the respondent Income-tax Officer on the appellant to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for not p...
Sushil Kumar Bagaria and anr. Vs. B.D. Mohta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal370,76CWN761
ORDER1. This Rule was obtained by an application under Section 115, Civil P. C., made on behalf of the two petitioners who are defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in a Commercial Suit No. 287 of 1970 in the 2nd Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta and arises out of order No, 12 made by the trial Court in that suit on 11th January, 1971. The plaintiff, who is opposite party No. 1 in this Court, has instituted the suit praying for a decree for Rs. 20,000/- on the basis of the Hundies said to have been executed by the present petitioners on their own behalf and as partners of the firm Provat Cinema which firm was impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 1'. There was also a 4th defendant, Nanda Kishore Bagaria, who is opposite party No. 3 in this Court. Defendant No. 1 the firm filed an application praying leave of the Court to defend the suit, the contention sought to be raised by that defendant being that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were not competent to take any loan on behalf of the firm and as su...
Babulal N. Shukla Vs. Jeshankar N. Shukla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal494
ORDERS.K. Hazra, J.1. In this matter on January 14, 1972 an application was made by the plaintiff for recording the death of defendant No. 1 Harilal N. Shukla and for substitution of his heirs in his place. The defendant No. 2 appeared through Ms advocate before me. By consent, order was passed in terms of prayers in the petition. One of the prayers in the petition was prayer (f); wherein, the petitioner prayed that a fresh writ of summons be issued for service on the substituted defendants. By consent, order was passed in terms of prayer (f) of the writ of summons. Thereafter at the time of settlement of the draft, a question arose as to whether the fresh writ of summons should be served on the substituted defendants. The matter was mentioned before me on March 1, 1972, on behalf of the plaintiff, who contended that a fresh writ of summons need not be issued but only the above order may be served on the substituted defendants. Thereafter, I directed that the Registrar-in-Insolvency ma...
Amola Bhattacharjee Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC482(Cal)
P.K. Banerjee, J.1. This rule is directed against a notice under Section 12(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as also the notice under Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 11 (2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, for assessment for the period between 8th July, 1966, and 30th September, 1967. The petitioner was carrying on business as the sole proprietor, under the name and style of 'S.B. Enterprise' at 90-B, Hazra Road, Calcutta-26. The petitioner is a manufacturer of bath tubs and bath trays and, it is alleged, sells them mainly outside the State of West Bengal. The petitioner started the said manufacturing business, it is alleged, from November, 1965. The accounting year of the petitioner is from 1st of April to 31st of March. On 8th July, 1966, the first sale was effected by the petitioner which was a sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On 19th July, 1...
Shri Iswar Jagannath Deb Jew Vs. Fatik Chandra Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal372
ORDERHazra, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the written statement. This application has been made by Umesh Chandra Seal, the defendant No. 3. The summons has been taken out on January 28, 1972 for leave to amend the written statement. The grounds taken in the application have been stated in paragraph 3 of the petition. It is slated that through inadvertence and/or mistake the effect of surrender and/or relinquishment of sebait-ship or trusteeship of Manindra Chandra Seal, the father of the plaintiff No. 2 Prem Chand Seal has not been specifically pleaded. According to the petitioner, the claim of the plaintiff No. 2 in this suit for she-baitship and trusteeship is barred by the law of limitation and/or ouster and the suit is not maintainable as there was no proper or any appointment of the next friend of the plaintiff deity. The proposed amendment has been annexed to the petition. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Prem Chand Seal the plaintiff No. 2, it is stated tha...
Sm. Kanak Das Vs. Ram Lakhan Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal183,76CWN590
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the defendants and it is directed against an order of the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta, allowing the plaintiff-opposite party's application praying for permission to sue as a pauper under Section 74 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and Rule 1 of Order 33 of the Small Causes Court's Manual.2. The plaintiff took a tenancy from the defendants of one Almirah shop on the road side window of the northern wall of the premises No. 53, Gray Street, Calcutta, under an agreement dated 27-9-63 at a rent of Rs. 45/- per month according to English Calendar. The plaintiff used to do repairing works of fountain pens, spectacles and cigarette lighters etc. In the month of February, 1966, the plaintiff left for Varanashi for meeting his relations there, keeping the shop under Jock and key with the articles of his business of the value of Rs. 400/-. On coming back to Calcutta on 3-4-66, he found that the Almirah shop w...
Gilloram Gouri Shankar Vs. the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal69
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner states that the petitioner under an actual user's import licence imported diverse consignments of G. P. Sheets which were duly landed from the relative vessels at the Port of Calcutta and thereafter taken charge of and stored in sheds and warehouses belonging to the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta who are the respondents to this application. Upon landing of the said goods the petitioner submitted through its clearing agents to the Customs Authorities, Calcutta, the relative bills of entry and complied with the Import Trade Control formalities for the clearance of the goods. But the clearance thereof was withheld. In consequence the goods remained for a considerable period of time in the custody of the respondent. Pending the Customs clearance of the goods the same were caused to be removed by the petitioner into the bonded warehouse and the last of suc...
Haridas Roy and anr. Vs. Calcutta Commercial Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal329,76CWN575
Laik, J. 1. The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are asfollows : On August 4, 1941, one Debendra Chandra Roy (hereinafter referred to as Deben) and his son Indu Bhusan Roy (hereinafter referred to as Indu) executed a mortgage in favour of the Respondent No. 1, the Calcutta Commercial Bank, in liquidation (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), to secure the repayment of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- and odd. The mortgaged property was a piece of rent-free Brahmottar land, situate in Belghoria in the district of 24 Parganas, the mortgagors holding permanent intermediary interest therein. 2. In March 1950, a suit was instituted by the Bank for enforcement of the said security against Deben and his two sons Santi and Indu being Defendants Nos. 1. 2 and 4 respectively. Two other persons viz., Soroshi and Aswini were impleaded as Defendants Nos. 3 and 5 respectively. 3. Deben died in May, 1950 leaving behind him, surviving his widow Sm. Saraiu Bala and his 4 sons viz., the said Santi (Res...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: [1973]88ITR257(Cal)
Masud, J.1. In this reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question has been referred to this court:' Whether, on the facts found by the Tribunal or on record and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Section 15C of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable to the new production units added to the existing production units of the assessee at Belur, Alupuram and Muri in respect of buildings, plants and machineries and directing exemption to be granted under the aforesaid section accordingly '2. The relevant assessment year is 1960-61, the corresponding previous year being the calendar year ended on December 31, 1959. The assessee-company is a manufacturer of aluminium ingots from ores. In the earlier years it had four manufacturing centres at Belur, Kalwa, Alupuram, and Hirakud. In the present accounting year one more was added at Muri and also there were additional extensions to the existing factories...
Mst. Ramdayee Vs. Dhanraj Kochar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal313,76CWN513
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This Rule was obtained against an Order of the Third Subordinate Judge at Alipore in Title Suit No. 50 of 1962 made on the 21st January, 1970. By this Order the Subordinate Judge has overruled two objections to the maintainability of the Suit. The first objection was with regard to misjoinder of parties and cause of action. And the second objection was based on Section 20 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to try the Suit.2. Briefly speaking the facts are that the plaintiff is the owner of premises No. 24 Russa Road South, Post Office, Tollygunge in the District of 24-Parganas which subsequently came to be known as premises No. 91. Deshapran Sasmal Road. The building appears to be a fairly large one consisting of 32 rooms and three shop roomsfacing the road. The plaintiff's case is that originally the defendant No. 1 became a tenant in respect of 23 rooms in this property. These 23 rooms have been described ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »