Kolkata Court June 1974 Judgments
Seimens India Ltd. Vs. Phanindra Kumar Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal271
ORDERHazra, J.1. This is an application for stay of a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The matter arises in thisway :2. On or about March 7, 1974, one Phanindra Kumar Dutt filed a suit in this Court being suit No. 83 of 1974 against Seimens India Limited as defendant claiming, inter alia, a decree for Rs. 56,925.08 p. being the price of goods sold and delivered together with interest thereon, pursuant to certain orders in writing. The terms and conditions of the orders and copy bills were annexures to the plaint. The writ of summons in the suit was served upon the defendant on March 29, 1974.3. Mr. Samir Kumar Roy Chowdhury, a solicitor of this Court entered appearance on behalf of the defendant on April 8, 1974. Thereafter, the plaintiff made an application to this court under Chapter XIII-A of theRules of the Original Side of this Court for final judgment for the amount claimed in the suit. The summons taken out under Chapter XIII-A of the Rules of the Original Sid...
Tag this Judgment!Gourlal Mitra Vs. Sm. Hara Sundari Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Cal331
Ghose, J.1. On January 24, 1969 the appellant instituted the suit being suit No. 341 of 1969 against the predecessor in title of the respondent for the enforcement of a mortgage and a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in form No. 5 Appendix 'D' to Schedule I of the said Code.2. The original defendant filed her written statement. Upon the death of the original defendant on June 7, 1963(?) the present respondent was substituted in the place and stead of the original defendant. The respondent filed her written statement in the suit on June 12, 1970. On April 24. 1972 the suit which had been appearing in the peremptory list of S. C. Deb J. for several days, was called on at about 12-15 p. m. The petitioner's counsel Mr. P. K.. Roy was not present at that time. The suit was passed over on the prayer of the Solicitor for the appellants.3. The Solicitor for the appellant thereafter went to the counsel Mr. P. K. Roy in the court of P. K. Banerjee J. Mr. Roy was ad...
Tag this Judgment!Biju Patnaik Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR96(Cal)
A.N. Sen, J.1. On the 26th of February, 1966, a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle, Cuttack, to Biju Patnaik for reopening his assessment for the year 1958-59 and Biju Patnaik moved this court under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the said notice and for quashing the same.2. The said writ petition of Biju Patnaik came up for final disposal before Chittatosh Mookerjee J. The learned judge by his order dated 7th of September, 1972, referred the matter to a Division Bench. The matter was subsequently assigned to this Bench by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.3. The only question that falls for determination in the instant case is whether the said notice dated 26th February, 1966, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment of the assessee for the year 1958-59 was lawfully and validly issued by the Income-tax Officer.4. The case of the assessee in the petition ma...
Tag this Judgment!Nemai Chakrabarty Vs. Banshidhar Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Cal333
N.C. Mukherji, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Court. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff may briefly be staled as follows:--2. By an Arpannarna dated 3-10-29, Chandi Charan Chakraborty and Baladeb Chakraborty dedicated and transferred the property described in Schedule A of the plaint to their ancestral Deity Sri Sri Sitala Debi Thakurani installed in some portion of the suit premises. They appointed themselves as shebaits and devolved a scheme of shebaits for performance of puja and seva of the said Deity. They also agreed to perform the seva by pala system in alternate months. The plaintiff is one of the sons of Chandi Charan and the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of Baladeb Chakraborty. The defendant No. 1 is the son of the plaintiff's own brother, who is dead. After the death of Chandi Mod Baladeb their respective heirs carried on the performance of the puja and seva according to the pala system. The plaintiff carried on ...
Tag this Judgment!Lily Biscuit Company (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC236(Cal)
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner-appellant against an order of Binayak Nath Banerjee, J., dated 26th May, 1965, summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery- Act, 1913, along with a copy of the certificate for Rs. 10,675.10 representing the tax payable under Section 6 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 11 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The petitioner filed an objection challenging the validity of the certificate and denying liability ; the objection was summarily rejected by the Certificate Officer on 12th March, 1964. An appeal was taken to the Collector which was also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition in revision before the Commissioner which also met with the same fate. The petitioner moved a revisional application therefrom before the Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Murarka Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal316,78CWN884
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerji, J. 1. Common questions are involved in all these rules and the reliefs prayed for are the same. These rules have all been heard together as prayed for by the parties.2. The petitioners are traders in coal and coke. They have to despatch coal and coke through railways from one part of India to the other. On April 2, 1972, restrictions on booking of coal in wagon loads from stations other than colliery sidings were imposed by the Railway Board. The Central Government amended Rule 302 (1) (a) of the Goods Tariff No. 33, Part I issued by the Indian Railway Conference Association. The alphabetical list of railway stations in India was also amended by the Railway Board whereby an additional Entry GX had been inserted below the abbreviation G on the list of abbreviations at page 14, Chap. VI of the Alphabetical list of Railway Stations in India corrected upto 31st March, 1970. The Central Government also amended Rules 1 and 2 of the Eastern Railway Coal Tariff, Part...
Tag this Judgment!Pronab Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal275
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. On August 8, 1964 the Government of West Bengal issued a notification under Section 4 of the West Bengal Agricultural Lands and Fisheries (Acquisition and Resettlement) Act (West Bengal Act XVIII of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) declaring its intention to acquire a number of plots specified in Schedule 'D' to the notification measuring in all 248.70 acres. These plots constitute a fishery or fisheries legally known as Bantra Beel which extend over several moujas all within the Police Station Baraset, District 24 Parganas. The purpose of the acquisition as set out in the notification is as follows :'Whereas it appears to the Governor that the cultivation and production of agricultural lands in the area described in Schedule 'A' below is affected injuriously by the establishment and existence of a fishery it is hereby declared that for the purpose of protection of lands described in Schedule 'A' and cultivation thereof, the Governor intends to ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Prasad Mukherjea Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ110Cal
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji delivered on February 13, 1973, on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant challenges an order of dismissal made on the 20th April, 1968, by the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India. The appellant was originally an employee of an Insurance Company. After the coming into operation of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, the appellant became an employee of the Corporation by virtue of Section 11 of the Act.3. Before the order of dismissal an enquiry was made into certain alleged charges against the appellant. The appellant was found guilty and the order of dismissal was passed. He preferred an appeal to the appropriate authority. The appeal was rejected.4. The appellant in paragraph 21 of his petition before the trial Court has stated that in conducting the enquiry there were violations of the principles of natural justice. The appellant conten...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupatrai Hirachand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1974
Reported in: [1977]109ITR97(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The reference relates to the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. In this reference four questions of law which are set out hereinafter have been referred by the Tribunal for this court's consideration. For proper appreciation of the questions of law referred by the Tribunal it would be necessary to refer to certain facts which have been found and stated in the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal.2. One Liladhar Hirachand, a Hindu governed by Mitakshara school of law, died on March 31, 1943, leaving behind his widow, Smt. Kankubai, and a son, the applicant, Bhupatrai Hirachand, who at the time was near about 18 years of age. It appears that after the death of his father, Bhupatrai Hirachand was married and got a son in August, 1950, by name, Tarun Kumar, who is still living.3. During his lifetime Liladhar carried on business under the style of 'Liladhar Hirachand' and also ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Baldeoram Beharilal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1974
Reported in: 80CWN247,[1975]99ITR108(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1953-54, the relevant previous year being the calendar year 1952. The assessee had a branch business styled as Girdhari Lal & Co., dealing in gunny and jute goods at Calcutta. One P. J. Doshi was a registered under-broker under the assessee-firm which was a member of the Gunny Traders Association, Calcutta. The said P.J. Doshi had business connection with the assessee-firm since 1937, and thereafter he joined the firm as a registered under-broker. In lieu of salary, P.J. Doshi was allowed brokerage in respect of transactions which passed through him. As the brokerage was adjusted only periodically, Doshi used to draw advances from the assessee-firm every month in anticipation of accruing brokerage. Doshi fell ill and could not submit his bill for adjustment of brokerage for a few years as he was lying ill for a long time. Ultimately he died. In the circumstances, the assessee thought if fit that the advances which ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »