Kolkata Court May 1974 Judgments
Sri Iswar Sridhar Jiew Vs. Anup Lal Sharma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal174
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. 1. The only point in this appeal is whether the tenancy of the respondent in respect of the suit room under the plaintiff-appellant deity was for 'manufacturing purposes' or for 'other purpose' within the meaning of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act The learned Judge of the Trial Court has dismissed the ejectment suit brought by the appellant-deity against the defendant-respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent upon the view that the tenancy of the defendant was for manufacturing purposes and therefore the said tenancy was only terminable by service of a six months' notice expiring with the year of the tenancy. The learned Judge of the Court below incidentally found that the defendant had committed default in payment of rent for four months and therefore, the ground under Section 13(1)(i) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act had been established by the plaintiff-appellant.2. In my opinion, the learned Judge's finding regarding the purp...
Tag this Judgment!Oceanic Industries (India) Private Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1974
Reported in: [1974]34STC546(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. The petitioner in this rule, an existing private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a registered dealer since 1963 under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner carries on business of manufacture and sale of chalk, pencils, ink, leather preservatives, plastic covers, etc. The petitioner at the time of making the application was assessed since 1963-64 till 1966-67, exclusive of the assessment year 1965-66 and taxes due had been duly paid. In respect of the assessment year 1965-66, the returns were also duly filed and by notice dated 16th April, 1968, the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhowanipore Charge (hereinafter referred to as the C. T. O.), called upon the petitioner to appear with relevant records on 18th July, 1968, failing which, it was stated, the assessment would be made ex parte. The petitioner by its letter of 15th July, 1968, asked for an adjournment of hearing on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!Poysha Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Controller of Patents and Designs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal178
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The alleged invention which is the subject-matter of this appeal from a Patent's order is (a) a pil-ferproof closure for a container comprising a top ring seamed to the body of the container, and aperture in the top ring of substantially smaller dismensions than the dimensions of the said top ring, a diaphragm covering the said aperture and a lid adapted to fit over the aperture, characterised in that the lower free edge of the wall of the aperture is crimped with the free edge of the diaphragm; (b) a closure as claimed hereinabove further characterised in that the upper edge of the wall of the aperture is curled, (c) a closure as claimed above wherein the flange of the lid is adapted to rest on the said curled upper edge of the aperture in the closed position, (d) a closure as claimed wherein the diaphragm is adapted to be cut along an edge adjacent to the said crimp.2. The Metal Box Company of India Ltd.. of Barlow House. 59, Chow-ringhee. Calcutta 20, an Indian...
Tag this Judgment!Daddy S. Mazda and ors. Vs. K.R. Irani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1974
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas39(Cal),78CWN872
B.C. Mitra, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated May 9, 1973, directing rectification of the share register of a company known as Property Company (Private) Ltd., and also issuing amandatory injunction directing the company and the appellants to pay to the respondent all dividends accrued and declared in respect of 170 shares, an injunction restraining the company (the third appellant), its servants and agents from paying any dividend to any one other than the respondent and an order directing the appellants to hand over to the respondent the share scrips and/or duplicate share scrips in respect of 170 shares to the respondent. 2. In 1943 the third appellant (hereinafter referred to as ' the company ') was incorporated with an authorised capital of Rs. 12,00,000 divided into 1,,200 ordinary shares of Rs. 1,000 each. The issued share capital was Rs. 6,00,000 divided into 600 fully paid up ordinary shares of the face value of Rs. 1,000. The main object of the ...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of Sasti Charan Mondal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1974
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1326
N.C. Talukdar, J.1. This is an application for bail on behalf of eight adcused applicants with notice to the State. The application is opposed, 2. The application brings to light a point of some importance relating to the powers of the High Court regarding bail as laid down in Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974). The facts necessary for appreciating the point raised can be put in a short compass, A first information was lodged at the Sainthia Police Station on the 16th September, 1971, at about 12.35 hours by one Netai Chandra Bhandari alleging inter alia that at about 1.00 hours in the night when he was sleeping in the veranda of the first floor of his east facing house and his son Anil a student of Class IX, and his two daughters were sleeping in two different rooms on the same floor, some persons called him by his name and an enquiry disclosed their identity as Naxalites. The de facto complainant came down with a lighted lantern on request, and found...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajmera Industries Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1974
Reported in: [1976]103ITR245(Cal)
A.N. Sen, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following two questions of law have been referred to this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rent received from the factory sheds and electric installations belonging to the assessee was assessable either under Section 28 or under Section 56(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the rent from non-factory buildings including godowns should be assessed under the head 'Business' and not under Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The statement of the case Prelates to the assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65, the corresponding accounting years being the calendar years 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively. The statement of the case sets out the relevant facts which may, however, be indicated. The assessee-company was incorporated on July 31, 1959, and closed its...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. Bharat Spun Pipe Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal8
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is an application for setting aside of an award dated the 28th March, 1973. In order to appreciate the point urged in this application the facts that need be referred to briefly are that there was an agreement in writing between Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., the petitioner herein and M/s. Bharat Spun Pipe Company. The said contract was executed on the 7th October, 1967. One Shrigopal Modi was the sole proprietor of Bharat Spun Pipe Company at that time. Thereafter, sometime in 1968 the said Messrs. Bharat Spun Pipe Company was transformed into a partnership firm and some persons were taken in as partners. At the hearing of this application a deed of partnership dated the 2nd of November, 1967, was produced before me whereunder this partnership was formed in respect of the said contract with the Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and the work carried thereunder. According to the petitioner the petitioner was not aware of this transfor...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Wakfs Vs. Asraful Alam Shami and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal162
ORDERHazra, J. 1. In or about 1824 one Serajuddin Ali Khan and his wife Musst. Karamunnessa Begum jointly created a Wakf comprising of properties situatedat Entally in the suburbs of Calcutta. They appointed themselves as joint mutawallis in the first instance. After the death of Serajuddin. Musst. Karamunnessa Begum became the sole mutawalli. On the death of Karamunnessa, one Wilayat Hossain became the sole mutawalli. He appointed his wife as his co-mutawalli. Both Wilayat Hossain and his wife were removed by Court in or about 1854. Then Golam Ali and his brother Humayun became joint mutawallis. Thereafter Golam Ali died. Humayun became the sole mutawalli. After the death of Humayun, Hossain Ali became the sole mutawalli. In 1901, Hossain Ali died. His two sons Md. Hossain and Ahmed Hossain became joint mutawallis. In 1905, Md. Hossain died and Ahmed Hossain became the sole mutawalli. In 1908, Warris Ali became joint mutawalli with his brother Ahmed Hossain. In 1935, Ahmed Hossain die...
Tag this Judgment!Assam Bengal Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the New India Assurance Company Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal322
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The pjaintiff claims reference to arbitration in respect of a marine policy for the loss suffered to the goods. According to the plaintiff the goods suffered loss or damage due to cyclonic weather while in transit. The insurance policy covered loss by pilferage, theft and water damage. When the claim was made, the insurance company completely repudiated the liability contending that loss, if any, was not covered by the policy of insurance. The said policy of insurance contains the following clause : --'If any dispute arising out of this policy relates to the quantum of claim the same shall be referred to the decision of an arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator to the decision of two arbitrators one to be appointed in writing by each of the parties within one calendar month after having been required in writing...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranjilal Bahri Vs. Income-tax Officer, d Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1974
Reported in: [1977]108ITR646(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner in this rule has challenged the validity of the notices all dated the 28th March, 1962, issued by the Income-tax Officer, 'D' Ward, Howrah, under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for assessment years 1940-41 to 1952-53 and also the validity of the notices under Section 22 of the Act for the said assessment years. He has, inter alia, prayed that the said notices under Section 22(4) and Section 34 of the Act be quashed and the respondents be commanded to cancel and/or withdraw the same and also to forbear from giving effect to and/or from taking any steps whatsoever in pursuance of the said notices. The only ground on which the said notices have been challenged at the time of hearing is that the necessary satisfaction of the Central Board of Revenue for the issue of the said notices were not given in accordance with law. Therefore, the condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent No. 1 under Section 34 of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »