Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal399,77CWN914
Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, a Cooperative Society, was registered in the year 1958 at Delhi under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) as extended to the State of Delhi. This Society has a branch office at Calcutta. Some time in August, 1970, the opposite party instituted a suit against the petitioner in the Citv Civil Court at Calcutta claiming damages amounting to Rupees 43,370/- for alleged breach of contract. In its written statement the Society raised inter alia a question as to the maintainability of the suit in view of Section 70of the Bombay Act. Section 70 of the Bombay Act reads as follows:--'No suit shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers, in respect of any Act, touching the business of the society, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal170,[1975]45CompCas67(Cal)
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is a petition for winding up of the company. The company in question is Pandam Tea Company Limited. The petitioner Raghunath and Sons Private Ltd. claims to be a creditor of the said Company in respect of moneys lent and advanced during the 14th July, 1958 and 19th December, 1967. As a result of these transactions and repayments according to the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 1,58,875.25 remained unpaid upto 30th June, 1967. Thereafter interest had accrued due to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed this petition for a claim of Rs. 2,67,492.72. According to the petitioner, the said liability or debt of the petitioner had been acknowledged by the Company in the balance-sheets of the company year after year from 1958 to 1968. The petitioner further states that statutory notice had been given on the 4th September, 1971 which, according to the petitioner, remains unreplied. Before admitting this petition for winding up notice was directed to be given t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 78CWN84,[1975]99ITR426(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner against an order dated July 2, 1971, passed by Banerjee J. discharging the rule obtained by the petitioner against proceedings initiated against him under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The facts as stated in the petition are as follows: The petitioner was originally assessed for 1959-60 by A. K. Sanyal, Income-tax Officer, 'J' Ward, District 1(2), Calcutta, respondent No. 1 in the rule under Section 23(3). On July 3, 1961, N. C. Addy, the Income-tax Officer, 'C' Ward, District 1(2), Calcutta, the respondent No. 2, issued a notice under Section 34, advising the petitioner that as he had reason to believe that the income assessable to income-tax for assessment year 1959-60 had escaped assessment, he proposed to assess the said income that had escaped assessment. The petitioner was thereby required to deliver within thirty-five days of receipt of notice, a return in the attached form for the said year ending Mar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal272,[1975]99ITR485(Cal)
1. This appeal is by the Revenue and is directed against an order passed in this Court by our learned brother Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. disposing of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by directing the Appellate Income-tax Tribunal to consider the application for restoration of the appeal that had been disposed of by the Tribunal in the absence of the appellant or his representative. The matter was brought to this Court by way of an application under Article 226. In the circumstances, against an assessment order the present respondent Murlidhar Sarda had preferred an appeal which was pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Calcutta. On the date fixed for hearing of that appeal the respondent Revenue was represented but no one appeared for the appellant. The Appellate Tribunal made an order in which it was mentioned that the notice fixing the date of hearing of the appeal was duly served on the 24th of December. 1969 and on the date of hearing, namely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1856
ORDERA.K. De, J.1. The Administrator, Siliguri Municipality. prosecuted the opposite party under Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for violation of Section 7(1) of the Act.2. The case of the complainant was that the Food Inspector of the Municipality saw the accused carrying two cans of milk for sale on the carrier of his bicycle on 10-9-68 at about 8-30A.M. He stopped him and intimated the accused-opposite party that he would take samples from the milk of his cans. He gave the opposite party a notice in writ-Ing under Section 11(1)(a), took sample of milk, separated that sample into three parts, added 40% formalin as preservative and after sealing, labelling and fastening all the three parts sent one part, to the Public Analyst for analysis. He delivered one of the three parts of the sample to t)he opposite party. The Analyst reported on 27-9-68 that the sample was adulterated. A complaint was lodged before the Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1973Cal432,78CWN352
Debiprasad Pal, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for confirmation of his possession in the disputed property and for a permanent injunction upon a declaration of his title thereto. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from one Dud Ali Mollah under a registered kobala dated 22nd Ashar, 1361, B. S., corresponding to 7th July, 1954 and was in possession since the purchase of the property. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had no title in the land and was wrongfully trying to interfere with his possession. The main defence of the defendant is that the suit property was attached in execution case No. 17 of 1954 on 19-5-1954 and the suit property was purchased by him in a court-sale on 9-5-1955. Since then the defendant is staled to be in lawful possession of the suit property.2. It is in evidence that Dud Ali Mollah to whom the suit land originally belonged entered into an agreement for sale of said property with the plaintiff. A Title...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1973]32STC208(Cal)
Debiprosad Pal, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company and deals in paper containers which are sold mainly to bulk consumers, majority of whom are registered dealers under the Act. The petitioner also is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). For the period 1st August, 1961, to 31st July, 1962, the petitioner claims that its gross turnover amounted to Rs. 4,07,167.37 and taxable turnover was Rs. 1,00,990.00. The tax payable on the basis of the petitioner's figures amounted to Rs. 5,049.50 and a sum of Rs. 5,125.25 was alleged to have been paid by it. For the said assessment year, the petitioner produced before the Commercial Tax Officer, being respondent No. 2, bills prepared by the Calcutta office, profit and loss account and the balance sheet. As respondent No. 2 desired to examine all the books of accounts of the petitioner because of certain alleged discrepancies between the return figures and the figures ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1977]47CompCas689(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Sections 391, 392, 393 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation and other consequential orders and directions.2. The facts of the case shortly are : That the petitioner, United Bank of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ' petitioner-bank ') was incorporated in the year 1918 and carried on banking business in the Eastern region of India. Three other banking companies, Comilla Banking Corporation Ltd., Comilla Union Bank Ltd., and Hooghly Bank Ltd. were amalgamated and/or merged with the pstitioner-bank with effect from 18th December, 1950, under the provisions of Section 44A of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. The registered office of the petitioner-bank is situate at No. 24, Park Street, Calcutta. The authorised capital of the petitioner-bank is Rs. 4,00,00,000 divided into 5,00,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 20 each and 30,00,000 shares of Rs. 10 each. The amount of capital of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal109
Debiprosad Pal, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who had instituted a suit for declaration of his exclusive title in 13 items of property listed in the schedule to the plaint, and for a declaration that the entries in the current revisional settlement record in respect of the suit property are incorrect. The properties in dispute fall within Mouza Ukra. The plaintiff's case is that the properties were acquired by him with his own money in different periods either in his own name or benami of others and he has been possessing the properties all along since acquisition. The defendant No. 1 resisted the suit contending inter alia that most of the suit properties were acquired from the income of the joint properties of Kedar Nath Chattaraj, the father of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had no capacity for earning money. It is necessary at this stage to give the history of the family, the members of which are involved in the present litigation. One Kedar Nath Chatta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1974CriLJ24
Sudhamay Basu, J.1. This Rule was obtained on an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. It relates to an order of detention dated the 20th of October, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, Birbhum in exercise of the powers vested in him under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The detenu was taken into custody on and from the 29th of August, 1972 by virtue of the said order on the ground that he had been acting 'in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State the maintenance of public order. The particulars given to the detenu as evidence thereof were as follows:1. On 28-5-1971 between 20.30 hrs. and 20.45 hrs. the detenu along with others being armed with revolver, daggers, bombs and other lethal weapons raided the house of gun licensee Sk. Abdul Motleb. S/o. late Md. Unnas of Haripur. P. S. Sam and forcibly took away his S. B. B. L. gun No...
Tag this Judgment!