Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal162,78CWN29
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J. 1. An order of requisition of land, needed for the Second Hooghly River Bridge Project, is the subject-matter of challenge. The impugned order is one dated November 23. 1972 passed by the duly authorised Collector under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act. 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Purpose of acquisition recited is 'providing proper facilities for transport and communication in connection with the construction of the Howrah approach and interchange of the Second Hooghly River Bridge Project'. Land involved are the two plots at Howrah being plot No. 2/33 Sheet No. 144 and plot No. 1 of Sheet No. 148 These plots admittedly belong to respondent No. 3. the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the Port Commissioners). The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of these two plots under the Port Commissioners carrying on pisciculture as the plots consti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal217,78CWN386
ORDERDebi Prosad Pal, J.1. The dispute in the present case centres round the settlement of Dadpur Baur Fishery (hereinafter referred to as the said Fishery) within the P. S. Beldanga, District -- Murshidabad. The petitioner is Lalgola Padma Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd. registered under the Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1940. It is stated that 98 per cent, of the members of the Society are bona fide fishermen. The settlement of the said Fishery has a chequred history. By an Indenture dated 1st April, 1963, the petitioner was appointed as a lessee of the said Fishery by the State of West Bengal at an annual rental of Rs. 13,000/-. The said lease was granted by the State for a fixed term of one year which was to expire on or about 15th April, 1964. Before the expiry of the said term of the lease, one Sm. Maya Debt filed a writ petition in this Court and oblained a rule being C. R. 70(W) of 1963. The petitioner was respondent No. 5 in the said rule. It is stated in the affidav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1973]32STC346(Cal)
Debiprosad Pal, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company, carrying on the business of manufacture of medicines and Pharmaceuticals. The petitioner is regularly assessed under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act of 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is not necessary to narrate the various facts stated in the petition which led to the retention of the books of accounts, as those facts are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present dispute. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 29th November, 1967, issued by respondent No. 4 under Section 14(1) of the Act. The said notice stated that in the course of examination of the books of accounts in the premises of the petitioner-company on the 16th November, 1967, it was observed that the company made sales of stores and raw materials every year which were not shown in the sales account of the ledger and, therefore, had not been taken into account in the assessments which were completed. By the said notice the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1974]44CompCas335(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 391, 392 and 393 of the Companies Act for sanction of an amalgamation proposed in the scheme which has been passed at the meetings of JalpaiguriTea Co. Ltd. and Bijoynagar Tea Co. Ltd. By the said scheme the whole of the undertaking of the petitioner No. 1, Jalpaiguri Tea Co. Ltd., is proposed to be merged and/or amalgamated with the petitioner No. 2, Bijoynagar Tea Co. Ltd., and the Jalpaiguri Tea Co. Ltd. is proposed to be dissolved without winding up under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act. Jalpaiguri Tea Co. Ltd. was incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act on 29th May, 1879, as a company limited by shares and is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The registered office is at No. 11, Government Place East, Calcutta, and the authorised capital of the said company is Rs. 7,00,000 divided into 28,000 shares of Rs. 25 each; the amount of paid up capital is Rs. 7,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1977]110ITR288(Cal)
A.N. Sen, J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following two questions have been referred. '(1) Whether, on the facts arid in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 71,460 arising out of a transaction between the assessee and Maheshwari Industries, Delhi, was of a speculative nature within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (2) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, whether the same is liable to tax. for that year under Section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the statement of the case. 3. As in our view the first question raised is clearly covered by the decision of this court in the case of Daulatram Rawatmull v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1970]78ITR503(Cal) we do not consider it necessary to set out the facts in any detail. We also note that the view expressed by this court in the case of Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal396
Amaresh Roy, J.1. This appeal is by a claimant under an award made under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894. In favour of the said claimant an award of compensation for acquisition of a property was made by the Collector of Calcutta on the 20th of September, 1963. On receipt of that notice the claimant made an application for a reference under Section 18 of the said Act on the 11th of November, 1963, on the allegation that the amount of compensation granted under the award was arbitrary and inadequate and the petitioners were unable to accept the same. On the same day, that is, 11th November, 1963 the claimants also made another application to the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, in which application they referred to the notice dated the 25th of September, 1963 and also to the application for reference to civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and then said in paragraph 2 of the application that the petitioners were agreeable to accept the same award under protes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1974CriLJ828
B.C. Mitra, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated May 24, 1972, whereby the appellants were held guilty of contempt of Court and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- which, however, was remitted by reason of the verbal unqualified apology tendered on their behalf. But they were directed to pay the costs of the application which were assessed at twenty gold mohurs. As the facts involved in this appeal and in F.M.A. No. 518 of 1972 are the same, and as one judgment was delivered to cover both the applications, for contempt, this judgment will cover both the appeals mentioned above.2. The respondents were appointed Higher Grade Clerks under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, on deputation. Their present department was the Home Department of the Uttar Pradesh Government. The respondent Hari Shankar Pant in F.M.A. 518 of 1972 was originally appointed as a clerk in the Office of the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Examination, and thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1974]97ITR55(Cal)
Amaresh Roy, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the revenue and has arisen out of an order made by our learned brother, T. K. Basu J., in Matter No. 53 of 1967, by which order his Lordship has granted a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the revenue who were the respondents before his Lordship to 'forthwith recall, cancel and withdraw the notice dated the 16th November, 1966, issued by the respondent No. 1 and a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents to forbear from giving any effect to the said notice. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to proceed according to law'. That order allowing the reliefs prayed for in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution arose in the following circumstances :The respondent before us, Calcutta Chromotype (Private) Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carries on business, inter alia, as manufacturers of playing cards, printers and lithographers. The assessment of the total inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1974]95ITR527(Cal)
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This appeal is by the revenue and it is directed against the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. dated August, 1972, quashing notices dated 26th March, and 31st March, 1970, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62 issued upon the respondent.2. The respondent is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. For the assessment year 1961-62, the said company was assessed under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the old Act') and the Income-tax Officer, ' E ' Ward, Companies Dist. III, computed the total income of the company at Rs. 70,692. The said assessment was, however, rectified subsequently by the said officer by his three orders dated 22nd March, 1962, 7th July, 1973, and the total income was finally computed at Rs. 41,519. The said company's assessment had been completed under the relevant provisions of the old Act and also under the new Income-tax Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1974Cal75,77CWN839
A.K. Sinha, J. This appeal is preferred against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sixth Court,the Executing Court, allowing the decree-holder petitioners to take delivery of possession after dispensing with the service of notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on some of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor briefly in the following circumstances. 2. The respondent, Ballygunge Estates (Private) Ltd. is the owner of a Cinema House known as 'Aleya Cinema' near Gariahat Market, Ballygunge, Calcutta. One Keshab Chandra Dutta, who was the Manager of the Cinema, instituted a suit on or about 17th August, 1970 in Alipore Court for specific performance of contract with other consequential reliefs against the respondent in terms of an agreement alleged to be entered into by and between the respondent and the plaintiff in that suit which was ultimately decreed ex parte. This ex parte decree was put into execution on or about 27...
Tag this Judgment!