Kolkata Court July 1974 Judgments

Milan Kumar Das Vs. Sm. Purnasashi Dassi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1974Cal380,(1975)1CompLJ30(Cal),79CWN9

M.M. Dutt, J.1. This suit has been referred to the Special Bench by our learned brother B. M. Datta, J., under Chapter V, Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules. The question which arose before the learned Judge and which we are to consider is, whether in the event of a partition between the sons, the mother who has already inherited the share of a deceased son is entitled to a further share under the Hindu Law. Tn two Single Bench decisions of this Court in Jugomohan Haldar v. Sarodamoyee Dossee (1878) ILR 3 Cal 149 and Poorendra Nath Sen v. Srimati Hemangini Dassi (1909) ILR 36 Cal 75, it has been held that the mother is entitled to a share even though she has already inherited the share of a deceased son. A contrary view has been taken by S.R. Das J, has he then was) in Indu Bhusan Chatter IIV. Mritunjoy Pal ILR (1946) 1 Cal 128. Before we consider the question, the facts of the case may be stated in brief. 2. The plaintiff Milan Kumar Das has instituted the suit, for partition of the pr...

NaraIn Das Paramanand Das Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'E' Ward and Ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1979]117ITR174(Cal)

Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order dated the 7th of February, 1972 [Narandas Paramanand Das v. Income-tax Officer : [1975]98ITR453(Cal) ] by which the trial judge dismissed the petitioner's writ petition directed against three notices, two dated the 3rd of December, 1966, and 6th of March, 1968, issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the third one being dated the 21st of February, 1968, issued under Section 274 read with Section 273 of the said Act. All the said notices were in respect of the assessment year 1963-64 for imposing penalty, calling upon the appellant, which is a partnership-firm, to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for not filing the return under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and also for not filing an estimate of advance tax payable under Section 18A(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, or Section 212(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the same assessment year.2. T...

The State Vs. Haridas Mundhra and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This is a reference under Rule 1 of Chapter XXXVII (Criminal Side Rules) of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta, Original Side, read with Clause 25 of the Letters Patent. Sudhamay Basu, J. has reserved the following points of law to be heard and determined by a Division Court constituted by three or more Judges:(i) Whether the new Criminal Procedure Code (Act 2 of 1974) applies to a case in which the order of committal was passed prior to the 1st April, 1974 but where a trial had not commenced in terms of Section 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?(ii) If the answer is in the affirmative would Chapter XVIII of the new Code (Act 2 of 1974) apply having regard to the fact that there is no committal under Section 209 of the new Code?(iii) Whether an order of committal passed under the old Code may be deemed to be an order of committal passed under Section 209 of Act 2 of 1974 having regard to Section 226 of the new Code?(iv) Is the phrase 'commence...

Sm. Lagna Bhattacharjee Vs. Shyamal Bhattacharjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1975Cal6

Laik, J. 1. My learned brother has dealt with the case fully. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.2. A Bhattachariee Brahmin couple, celebrated their marriage under Hindu form and rites. They thereafter registered their marriage under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which contains the provisions of Sec. 15 onwards.3. The Court below dismissed the wife's application made under Section 25 of the said Special Marriage Act of 1954 for the annulment of the Hindu marriage by a decree of nullity,.4. The only question that calls for consideration is whether a marriage celebrated in other forms but registered under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 can be declared a nullity under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 1954 under Section 25 because of the effect of registration of such marriage read with Section 18 of the Act which says inter alia that the marriage shall 'be deemed to be solemnized under this Act' referring thereby to the Special Marriage ...

Jatia Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Ram Prosad Bajoria and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1975]45CompCas686(Cal)

Janah, J.1. This appeal is against a judgment and decree dated March 27, 1972, passed by S. K. Roy Choudhury J., decreeing the suit, namely, Suit No. 1221 of 1966, which was filed by the first respondent against the appellant and the second respondent. The said suit was one for a declaration that the shares mentioned in the plaint belonged absolutely to the plaintiff and no other person had any right, title and interest therein. There was also a prayer for deleting the name of the second defendant (respondent No. 2 in the present appeal) in respect of the said shares and inclusion of the name of the plaintiff therein as the registered holder of the said shares in the books of the defendant No. 1 (appellant in the present appeal). There were also prayers for further reliefs in the suit, but we are not concerned with these in this appeal.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal are briefly as follows :On October 16, 1958, the second respondent, Ballavdas, purchased a l...

Methal Lal Gora Vs. District Magistrate, 24- Parganas and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1975CriLJ295

N. C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule was issued on an application under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, assigned to this Bench for hearing by the Chief Justice. The application is filed by the detenu, Methai Lai Gora, praying for a writ and/or order and/or direction, in the nature of habeas corpus and is directed against the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas; the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail: the State of West Bengal, through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of West Bengal; and the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. Government of India. New Delhi.2. The applicant before us has been detained under Section 3 (1)(a)(ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act XXVI of 1971), by Order No. 101/74 dated 6-3-1974, passed by the District Magistrate 24-Parganas 'with a view to preventing him from acting in 'any way prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'. He was arrested on the 15th March, 1974. when the ground of detent...

Sikri and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1977]106ITR682(Cal)

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment for the year 1962-63, the relevant previous year in respect of which ended on the 31st March, 1962. The assessee is a private limited company. It carries on business of the manufacture and sale of soap, cocoanut oil, etc. It is also a dealer in bottles, corks, etc. During the relevant assessment year the assessee claimed that it had borrowed Rs. 3,10,000 on hundies from nine different parties of diverse amounts. These parties were Seth Lalchand Ram, Lilaram Girdharam, Biharilal & Co., Arjundas Srichand, Nandlal Pareshrarn, Gopaldas Mohanlal, Lalchand Kishendas, Dendaram Vasudeb and Tirthadas & Sons. The Income-tax Officer went into the sources of these amounts in the course of the assessment. The assessee was required to furnish evidence to prove the genuineness of the aforesaid hundi loans. Summonses under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were issued to the above parties requesting them to produce their book...

Sushil Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Collector of Central Excises and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1978(2)ELT96(Cal)

C. Mookerjee, J.1. At the material time the petitioner used to manufacture rubber products including Radiator Nose pipes in his factory, named Messrs. S.K. Rubber Works at 23, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Calcutta. With effect from the 26th May, 1967, the Central Excise duties became leviable on rubber products including pipes and tubes of unbardened volcanised rubber under sub-item No. 3 of item No 16A of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. During the [period May 26, 1967 to May 31, 1968, the petitioner had removed goods manufactured in his factory by submitting application in Form A.R.I, and after payments of excise duty calculated on the basis of price of articles declared by him. On December 13, 1967 he as the proprietor of Messrs S.K. Rubber Works executed a General Bond with security for provisional assessment of his goods to excise duty in favour of the President of India. The said Bond was signed on May 8, 1968. With effect from June 1, 1968 special procedu...

Sreeniketan Boarding House Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and or ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1975]35STC205(Cal)

Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This rule is directed against the assessment order passed by the respondent on the petitioner who carries on business of a boarding house. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner runs the boarding house where the boarder is admitted on a daily basis and consolidated charges are payable strictly by cash in advance which includes meals and lodging. Meals are also served to the boarder's guests if it has been properly notified to the manager. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the boarding house is assessable under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. From the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer it appears that the Commercial Tax Officer as also the Assistant Commissioner have tried to break up the rental charges of the boarding and the tiffin, etc., and by that process has made an assessment against the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of H.P. v. Associated Hotels ...

Jitendra Nath Mitra and anr. Vs. State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1974CriLJ1441

ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This rule is at the instance of the two accused-petitioners, directed against an order dated the 27th February, 1973 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri and for quashing the proceedings pending before him being C. R. Case No. 569 of 1972, under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 for a contravention of Section 21(1)(iv)(b) of the said Act.2. The facts leading on to the Rule need not be set down in details. A. petition of complaint was filed on the 28th December, 1972 by P. R. Mukhopadya. Inspector of Factories, Julpaiguri in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Siliguri. against two accused persons viz. Jitendra Nath Mitra and Rabindra Nath Mitra. the occupier and the manager respectively of the Sannyasithan Tea Estate, P.S. Bagdogra under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 for a contravention of Section 21(1)(iv)(b) of the Factories Act, 1943. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by his order...