Kolkata Court February 1974 Judgments
Oriental Rubber Works Vs. A.K. Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC30(Cal)
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership-firm and carries on the business in the manufacturing of and dealing in rubber goods and waterproofing. Its principal place of business is at 171A, Mahatma Gandhi Road. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On 4th June, 1973, the office premises of the petitioner at 171A, Mahatma Gandhi Road, was raided by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who described themselves as Inspectors of Commercial Taxes. All the books of account, documents, registers and receipts, etc., were seized by the said respondents. Similar search was made at the factory premises of the petitioner at Kathalia, Howrah, by respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and all valuable documents, files, papers and vouchers, current cash books and registers were removed by the said respondents. It is alleged that the said search was conducted in an arbitrary manner. After the said search was conducte...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Biswas Vs. Nityananda Haldar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1266
ORDERS.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. This application by the complainant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the order of acquittal passed by Shri H. R. Das, Magistrate. 1st Class, Bongaon, in case No. C/530 of 1968. The facts of the case can be stated as follows:On a complaint filed by the petitioner accused opposite parties were summoned under Sections 379/427/147 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate to whom the case was transferred, after examination of the four prosecution witnesses framed a charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code on 4-7-1971 against all the accused persons. Thereafter, the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined on different dates and the accused persons were examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they also led evidence and one defence witness was examined. The case was set down for further hearing on 24-8-1973 on which date the complainant did not take any step and was found absent. T...
Tag this Judgment!Mukti Kumar Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ838
ORDERAmal Krishna De, J.1. Petitioner is the accused in Special Court Case No. 3 of 1973 in the 5th Additional Special Court, Calcutta. Prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in the case. The learned Judge has framed charge on two counts against him under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner has pleaded not guilty to the charge and has, forthwith, given a list of P. Ws. for their cross-examination. The learned Judge has recalled those P. Ws. for cross-examination. On 1-8-1973 P.W. 9) A. ,K. Das came to cour,t on being recalled, as wished by the accused, for his cross-examination. The Public' Prosecutor in charge of the case filed a petition before the learned Judge to allow bin* 'to further' examine' him 'to prove the authorship of the document' already collectively admitted in evidence as Ext, 6 on the evidence of P.W. 2, N. K. Dutta. Accused petitioner objected to the prayer. Public Prosecutor filed anot...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer, e Ward and ors. Vs. Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1974
Reported in: 78CWN919,[1976]102ITR616(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This appeal relates to the assessment for the assessment year 1966-67 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the 16th of February, 1967, the original assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the said assessment tax was computed as payable by the petitioner-company on the basis of 25% of the dividend income of Rs. 16,01,769 and the taxable figure arrived at was Rs. 4,00,442'26. After giving the petitioner credit for the tax deducted at source on this account the tax liability of the petitioner was nil on this amount. Thereafter, on the 26th December, 1967, supplementary assessment was made under Section 143(3) read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to include the capital gains arising as a result of the sale of 2,14,174 shares of Rs. 10 each to Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. On the 15th of February, 1968, an order was passed under Section 154 of the Act on the ground that there was a mistake in the calculation of tax. I...
Tag this Judgment!Pronab Kumar Ghosh Vs. Krishna Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal109,78CWN448
Sen Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Shri P. K. Chanda, Judge, Third Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 8 of 1968, refusing the prayer of the husband to annul his marriage with the opposite party respondent by decree of nullity on the grounds stated hereafter.2. The appellant and the respondent are both Hindus by religion. They were married on the 8th March, 1967, at Kiabani a village in the district of Midnapore, according to Hindu rites. Both the parties hailed from the same district. The husband's village is at Tatarpur about 25/30 miles from Kiabani. The respondent and her father live at Chandrakona another village within the district of Midnapur. Kiabani is the village where the uncle of the respondent resides.3. In December, 1967, the husband filed an application under Section 12(1)(b) read with Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with a prayer for decree of nullity on the ground that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sunderlal Rethi Vs. Income-tax Officer, r Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1974
Reported in: [1974]97ITR183(Cal)
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. The petitioner, a registered firm within the meaning of Section 2(23) and Chapter XVI of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed return for the assessment year 1964-65, on the 31st December, 1965. By an order dated February 26, 1967, the Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner under Section 143(3)/182(i) of the Act as a registered firm for a total income of Rs. 31,692 and charged interest for delay in filing return. Thereafter, on January 30, 1967, a notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was issued upon the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why an order imposing penalty should not be made under Section 271 of the Act as the petitioner without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return under Section 139(1) within the period allowed and in the manner required under the said section. Thereafter, by an order dated February 3, 1969, a penalty being 2 per cent. on the tax for the period of default, was imposed by the Income-tax Officer upo...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmanand Goyal and anr. Vs. N.C. Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1079
N.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the two accused-petitioners, Brahmanand Goyal and Anandpal Goyal, directed against an order dated the 19th January, 1971, passed by Shri H. P. Kar, Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta issuing process against seven accused-persons including the two accused-petitioners, under Section 120-B read with Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing the proceedings pending before him, being case No. C/39 of 1971.2. The facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass. A complaint was filed before the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on the 19th January, 1971, by the complainant opposite party No. 1, Shri N. C. Chakravorty of Messrs. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. against the seven accused persons, including the two accused petitioners. The learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta examined the complainant and issued process against all the accused persons under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India and ors. Vs. R.N. Dutt and Sons and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal48
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of P. K. Banerjee, J. dated July 29, 1970 whereby the learned Judge has set aside the order passed under Section 3(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1947 by the Deputy Controller, Reserve Bank of India, cancelling the authorisation in favour of the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the said Act. It appears that since 1944 the petitioner had a licence to deal in foreign currency granted to the petitioner subject to such conditions as might from time to time be notified by the Reserve Bank of India. On March 25, 1947 the petitioner was granted an authorisation or a licence to deal in foreign currency by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The said authorisation was to purchase and sell foreign currency notes and coins at 34, Garden Reach Road, Kidderpore and Dura Dum Airport, Calcutta, subject to such conditions as might ...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Romesh Kumar Rajgharia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Cal345
Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 15, 1973 passed by the Court of first instance dismissing the application made by the appellant for setting aside an interim award dated September, 30, 1972 made by the joint arbitrators directing the appellant to refund to the respondent the sum of Rs. 2.24,582/-on or before November 15, 1972; with interest on the said sum at 9% per annum, if the same were not paid by the appellant on or before November 15, 1972. The said sum was lying deposited with the appellant as and by way of security and or earnest for due performance by the respondent of three several contracts dated July 22, 1969, June 7, 1970 and February 28, 1970 executed by the parties.2. By and under the above mentioned three several contracts, the respondent agreed to execute certain earth-works and to construct certain minor bridges in connection with the diversion of the main line at the end of and/or relating to the Bokaro Steel City Mars...
Tag this Judgment!Bholanath Shaw Vs. Badrinath Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Cal292
ORDERDeb, J. 1. This suit was instituted with Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent for administration of the trust estate comprised mainly of immovable properties all situate outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court and for other reliefs including the removal of the defendant No. 1 from the office of the sole trustee and shebait and for appointment of the plaintiff in her place. 2. The case pleaded in the unamended plaint is shortly this: One Ram Bharas Shaw was the sole shebait of the defendant deity. He was also the owner of the properties in suit. By a Deed of Trust dated August 2, 1946, he transferred the suit properties to himself as the sole trustee for the objects stated therein. The said Deed, inter alia, provides that on his demise his wife Sm. Dhaneswari Debi shall be the sole trustee for life and on her death his four sons shall be the joint trustees of the trust estate. It also provides that on his death Dhaneswari shall be the sole she...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »