Kolkata Court April 1973 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.
Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal488
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The petitioner, a limited company, challenges in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Kate Bills for both owner's share and occupier's share of consolidated rates relating to 17 Premises under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, being Premises Nos. 21, 23, 25-A, 25-B, 27-A, 27-B, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 55 and 57, Park Street, Calcutta, for the period starting with the 1st quarter 1968-69 to 4lh quarter 1970-71, being Annexure 'A' to the petition, both shares of the Rate Bills relating to the said 17 Premises described in Annexures 'B' and 'C' of the petition, the three letters dated 17th of March, 1971 and the notices of demand dated 3rd March, 1971, being Annexure 'D' to the petition and the Rate Bills dated 1st of January, 1971, being Annexure 'F' to the petition. In order to appreciate the contentions urged in this application it would be necessary to set out certain facts. On the 1st of May, 1952, the Calcutta Municip...
Sm. Hemaprova Bose Vs. Secretary to the Government of West Bengal Home ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1973
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1503
P.K. Chanda, J.1. This is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Hemaprova Bose on behalf of her son Rabi Bose who has been ordered to be detained by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, pursuant to order No. 226(M) dated 27-5-1972 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu was taken into custody on 27-5-1972. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 6-6-1972 and it was referred to the Central Government on the same date. Thereafter, the case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board on 24-6-1972. The Advisory Board submitted its report on a consideration of the detenu's representation on 31-7-1972 that there was sufficient cause for continued-detention of the detenu. The State Government confirmed the order of detention on 4-8-1972. It appears that the mandatory provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act have all been complied with in t...
Essavi India Match Mfg. Co. Vs. Essabhai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal330
S.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made under Ch. XIIIA of the Original Side Rules by which Chose, J. directed the appellant to furnish security on or before April 30, 1970 for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only to the satisfaction of the Registrar and in default passed a decree in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the summons with the qualification that the interim interest and interest on judgment were to be on the principal sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- at 6 per cent per annum.2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The respondent Mariam Shaik Essabhoy lent and advanced on diverse dates between November 24, 1967 and December 1, 1967, a total sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the defendant No. 1, a partnership firm and the defendant No. 1 agreed to repay the said sum on demand with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The fact of these loans is not in dispute nor is it in dispute that a number of promissory notes by which the said respondent agreed to repay the loans with...
Sukhlal Chandanmull Karnani Trust and anr. Vs. Shew Kumar Karnani and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal444
ORDERA.K. Sarkar, J. 1. This application is made under Charitable and Religious Trusts Act XIV of 1920 in the matter of Rai Bahadur Sukhlal Chandanmull Karnani Trust having office at No. 3, Synagogue Street in Calcutta within the aforesaid jurisdiction of this Court. The settlor. Tndra Kumar Karnani who was also the managing Trustee, died on or about July 8, 1966 without appointing by Will or Deed any trustee in his place and on his death there remained only two trustees surviving viz., the petitioner, Chhaganlal Kothari and the respondent No. 3, Ratanlal Periwal. The Indenture of Trust dated June 29, 1946 provided inter alia that, there shall not be more than five trustees nor there shall be less than three trustees and for appointment of new trustee according to the rules mentioned in Schedule IV to the said Indenture in case of a vacancy, except in case of the said Indra Kumar Karnani. 2. On the death of the said Indra Kumar Karnani, who did not appoint any trustee by Will or Deed i...
Dr. Lawrence T. Picachy S.J. Archbishop of Calcutta Vs. Corporation of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal493
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to what should be the proper criterion for assessment of the fee payable to the Corporation of Calcutta for grant of permission to build as granted in the present case.2. On the pleadings material facts are not disputed. Petitioner Archbishop of Calcutta, is the owner of plot No. 63, scheme No. LII C. I. T. within the municipal limits of Calcutta. He proposed to build a school for poor children and a chapel on the said plot out of a fund raised mainly from public charities. On March 23, 1967 he applied for necessary sanction of a building plan submitted to the Corporation of Calcutta. Under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and the scale of fees fixed by the Corporation thereunder certain fees for such sanction are payable to the Corporation. As such fees are payable on varying scales for varying types of buildings, there arose some dispute as to what should be the proper quantum of fee payable...
Ballarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1973
Reported in: [1975]101ITR55(Cal)
Hazra, J.1. On the application of the assessee under Section. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the Appellate Tribunal referred the following questions to this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the case of the asses see-company was rightly reopened under Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,157 claimed by the assessee under the Lead 'Rights, Concessions and Privileges' was not allowable under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the same being an item of expenditure of a capital nature ?' 2. The facts will appear from the statement of the case. The assessee-company is a public limited company. The assessment year is 1959-60 and the relevant accounting period ends on June 30, 1958. The assessment of the company was complet...
Prahladrai Agarwala Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR130(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share of the profit of assessee's wife was includible in the total income of the assessee under Section 64(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is an individual. The reference arises in respect of the assessment year 1962-63 for which the accounting year is 2018 R.N. corresponding to the period 26th March, 1961, to 13th April, 1962. The assessee had been and at the material time also was a partner in a firm called M/s. Ramesh & Co. In this firm the assessee had 8 annas share and the balance was shared by three other partners, Kunjilal, assessee's father, Hariram, assessee's brother, and one Jagdish Prosad, a stranger. From his account with the said firm the assessee made two gifts to his wife, Kaushalya Debi, Rs. 21,000 on 10th November, 1960, and Rs. 30,000 on ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Asit Kumar Mondal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal180
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common award in connection with claims for compensation for kinds acquired under the Defence of India Act, 1939- The lands were originally requisitioned in 1943 and they were thereafter acquired on 12-4-1946 without derequisition. The Collector assessed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per bigha in respect of firm lands of majority plots, Rs. 600/- per bigha in respect of two such plots and Rs. 250/-per bigha in respect of tanks and doba. The Collector also awarded compensation for trees at the rate of Rs. 50/- per bigha in respect of some plots. The claimants being aggrieved filed applications for reference and the Arbitrator passed an award holding that the amount assessed by the Collector in respect of the lands and also tanks and doba was more than fair market price of the lands. About the bamboos in case No. 125 of 1957 the Arbitrator awarded an additional sum of Rs. 650/-. Except as aforesaid no other amount was awarded by...
Tinkari Das Vs. Jamuna Bala Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal448,1973CriLJ90,77CWN997
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a judgment of affirmance. The plaintiff instituted the suit on 26th May, 1965 on the following allegations. The plaintiff had been owner of the tank recorded in C. S. Plot No. 1177 Khatian No. 2268 P. S. Chinsura within the Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality which is the suit property. The defendant executed a deed of lease on 3-11-1961, to which the plaintiff was also a party, taking a settlement of the fishery right of the tank for a period of five years from Baishakh 1368 B. S. to Chaitra 1372 B. S. agreeing to pay rental at the rate of Rs. 525/- per year and municipal taxes. The lease contained a condition that in the event of failure by the lessee to pay annual rental within the year, the lessor will have a right of re-entry on forfeiture of lease without any notice. The defendant did not pay any rent from 1369 B. S. to 1371 B. S. except a sum of Rs. 100/- and under the terms of lease he had no title or interest in the...
Sm. Panna Banerjee and ors. Vs. Kali Kinkor Ganguli
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal126
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated November 29, 1971. The decree was passed in a suit instituted by the first respondent Kali Kinkor Ganguli in this Court for a declaration that he was the sole owner of premises No. 244, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta and was the sole shebait of Firingi Kali and the other deities installed in the premises. There is an alternative prayer in the plaint for a declaration that the first respondent is entitled to an undivided half share in premises No. 244, Bowbazar Street, and to half the pala in the sheba of the Firinhi Kali and the other deities installed there.2. It is not disputed that this temple is the abode of the deity popularly known as Firinsi Kali and several other deities. It is necessary to trace the historical background to the dispute. One Ramkanta Pal constructed a Shiva temple, and installed the deity Shiva, on a piece of land measuring 11 Chittacks and 11 gandas at 244, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, which...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »