Kolkata Court May 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.
Saugar Electricity Supply Vs. M.P. Electric Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal408
ORDERBanerjee, J. 1. In this rule the petitioner challenges the order by which the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 26,164/- per annum as rent of 500 KW Mirlees Diesel Set. It is not necessary for me to refer the facts of the case in detail but it will suffice to say that while the rent payable was fixed at Rs. 26,164/- per annum on the basis of the facts that fixing the remaining life of the set, the department stated that the set is to be taken as life of 12 years. The petitioner stated that the mode of fixing the rental on that basis was patently wrong and contrary to the Seventh Schedule of the Act. The case of the petitioner, as made out in the petition, is that the set was purchased in 1950 for a sum of 13000 and admittedly there is no dispute that the costs of the set was originally Rs. 2,95,000/-. On the basis of the said amount, it is stated by the petitioner, that the rent as fixed by the respondent is wholly illegal. It is further stated that the rent so fixed was in violati...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nawab Musharaf Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1972
Reported in: [1975]101ITR36(Cal)
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This is an application for an order that the statement of case be amended by substituting the names of Nawabjadi Kamrunnessa Khatoon and Nawabjadi Badrunnessa Khatoon in the place and stead of Nawab Musharaf Hossain, since deceased, also for an order that the delay in filing the paper book be condoned and that the time to file the paper book be extended by three months from the date of the order to be made herein.2. The assessee in this case was Nawab Musharaf Hossain who filed the return on 19th July, 1957, for the assessment year 1955-56. Subsequently, revised returns were filed on October 10, 1958, for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. The Income-tax Officer in making the order of assessment did not accept the assessee's contentions and assessed 1/4th share of the income of the estate less statutory allowance of Rs. 4,500. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that one of the members of the association of persons had no definite or determined ...
Bahadurmal Sethia and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal67
ORDERB.C. Mitra, J. 1. This is an application for appropriate rates and directions directing the respondents to forthwith recall, cancel and withdraw the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1967 and also for an order directing the respondents to refrain from giving effect or further effect to the provisions of the said levy order and for other incidental reliefs.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a Director of a Rice Milling Company, the petitioner No. 2 is a partner of a firm engaged in milling rice and the petitioner No. 3 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. All the members of the petitioner No. 3 claim to be the licensed millers of rice. The business of rice mills consists of the purchase of paddy from the market and recovery of rice from such paddy for ultimate sale of rice to wholesalers in different parts of the State.3. On April 18, 1967, the respondent made an order known as the West Bengal Rice Mills Control Order, 1967 in exercise of powers conferred by Sectio...
Hahnemen Publishing Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Chandra Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal484,77CWN432
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. These three appeals are by the plaintiff-landlord arising out of ejectment suits under Clause (h) of the proviso to Section 12(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') viz., that the premises is reasonably required by the landlord for the purpose of building and rebuilding plaintiff's case, in substance, was that the premises No. 1/29/1, Bowbazar Street, originally belonged to one Prafulla Bhar, but subsequently he leased out the same to the plaintiff, a partnership firm for 99 years. The plaintiff became lessee of the premises by a registered lease dated 8-10-1953. The defendants became tenants under the plaintiff by reason of the aforesaid lease. The plaintiff required the suit premises for the purpose of building and rebuilding and also under the terms of the said lease. The tenancy of the defendants had been determined by notice to quit but as the defendants did not vacate the premises, the plaintiff brought ...
Sri Debi Mata and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal171,76CWN930
P.B. Mukharji, C.J.1. These appeals are from the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sen made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In these five Rules, the petitioners are challenging three Notifications and two Proclamations issued by the State of West Bengal or its authority. As common questions have been raised in all these Rules, they were heard and disposed of by the learned trial Judge by one judgment. We in these appeals have followed the same procedure.2. It is not disputed that the facts relevant to the issues are the same or similar. The facts set out in Civil Rule No. 565 (W) of 1964 are taken as in the main petition. In this petition, the petitioner is Sri Sri Devi Mata who is the family deity of Panchkote Raj Estate. The petitioner-appellants have been holding certain land in the intermediary interest in Purulia which was previously within the district of Manbhum in the State of Bihar. On September 1, 1956, the Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territo...
Phul Chand Ranilia Vs. Ballabhadas Agarwal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal54
ORDERDeb, J.1. This is an application forsetting aside of the order dated 12th April, 1972, dismissing this suit for default of appearance of the plaintiff.2. In support of this application reliance was placed on an affidavit affirmed by the Solicitor's clerk who has said in his affidavit that on the 11th April, 1972, he went through the peremptory list of 12th April, kept in Board-maker's department and failed to 'notice' this suit and then on the 12th he again went through the peremptory list but failed to 'mark' this suit in that list with the result he did not inform his master that this suit was going to be heard on that day.3. The petitioner has said in the petition that he was regularly attending the solicitor's office on and from the 17th November, 1971, and the learned counsel who was briefed in this matter on the 27th November, 1971, came to know from the solicitor on the 17th April, that this suit was dismissed on the 12th April, 1972.4. Mr. Dutt, appearing for the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›