Kolkata Court January 1975 Judgments
Sudhendu Narayan Deb Vs. Mrs. Renuka Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal135
K.J. Sen Gupta, J. 1. This application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment end order dated 4-12-1973 passed by this Court in F. M. A. No. 624 of 1968, affirming the order passed in Misc. Case No. 39 of 1968. by Sri M. M. Haldar, Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore, 24-Parganas. 2. In order to appreciate the point at issue, the following facts need be stated:-- That the petitioner is the judgment-debtor No. 2 in the execution case. His father Raja Abhoy Narayan Deb of Assam died in 1941. He. along with other properties left the premises No. 117-A, Rash Behari Avenue, situated on an area of about 1 bigha 6 cottah. It is a three storied building comprising 32 spacious rooms with two out houses. That on or about 15-9-1949, the petitioner and others mortgaged their 2/3 share in the said property to raise a loan of Rs. 27,000/-. The mortgagors were:-- (a) the present petitioner (b) Kumar Surjyendra Narayan Deb (...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bissessar Lal Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: [1976]105ITR684(Cal)
Deb, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the return filed suo motu for the assessment year 1956-57 beyond the period of four years from the expiry of that assessment year was invalid and that no fresh assessment could be made thereon for that year ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax couldnot initiate proceedings under Section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, against the legal representatives of the deceased assessee and that as such the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under the said Section 33B was bad in law ?' 2. On March 31, 1962, the Income-tax Officer received the voluntary returns of income for the assessment years 1956-57 to 1961-62, filed by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Nandalal Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal130
Sen Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri M. L. Chakraborty, Arbitrator in L. A. Case No. 182 of 1949. 2. This proceeding was started before the learned Arbitrator in the following circumstances:-- 3. Plots Nos. 156, 157 and 260 of Mouza Gouripore and Plot No. 820 of Mouza Birhati, which comprises a garden were requisitioned by Government under Defence of India Act on 24th June, 1944 and the same was de-requisitioned on the 21st February, 1948. 4. After de-requisition the respondent, owner of these plots asserted that during the period of requisition, extensive damages to the trees and to the soil of the garden were made by the military authority who occupied the same during that period. It was further asserted that a large number of trees were cut down and some area of the garden were rendered unfit for gardening purposes by making pavements with bricks and concret for placing ante air craft guns. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed Rs. 18...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Nath Prosad Kedarnath Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal203
Sen Gupta, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover Rs. 9, 875 as compensation for goods and consigned by the plaintiff for carriage by railway which were not delivered to him.2. The damage for non-delivery of goods entrusted to the railway for carriage was claimed under the following circumstances :--On the 26th July, 1947 the plaintiff delivered to the East Indian Railway at Howrah Station two bars of silver bearing Nos. 10196 and 259 weighing 1 md. 31 seers for carriage to Balia Station on Oudh and Tirhut Railway now North-Eastern Railways and for delivery of the same to the consignee thereof. The East Indian Railway now Eastern Railway administration accepted the said goods to be carried and delivered as per receipt No. C-003343 granted on that account. The plaintiff made a declaration of the conditions and value of the consignment prior to acceptance of the articles by the railway administration for carriage. On repeated demands the railway administration did not deliver t...
Tag this Judgment!Jetha Laharang Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ556
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. In this application for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus the detenu is challenging an order of detention assed by the District Magistrate. Darieeline. on the 6th December. 1973 in the exercise of nower conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner preiudicial to the maintenance of tomblike order. The order of detention was passed on the 6th December. 1973 and on that very day report was made to the State Government under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. The detenu was arrested Pursuant to that order on and the detention commenced from 7th December. 1975 (1973 ?). Such detention was approved by the State Government on 17th December. 1973 and on that very day the matter was reported to the Central Government. The case of the detenu was referred...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Prasad Vijaivargiya Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR748(Cal)
1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1962-63 and here we are concerned with thequestion of interpretation of the deed of partnership dated November 9, 1959. For better appreciation of the question involved in this reference it is, therefore, necessary to set out some of the relevant facts and the same may, briefly, be stated.2. The assessee-firm originally consisted of seven parties. Sri Hariprasad Ghanshyamdas, Narayana Prasad, Shivnarayan and Soorajrnal, sons of Ram Sahay (deed.), Mannalal, Madanlal, son of Shivnarayan and Mohanlal, minor son of Mannalal. Such firm was constituted under the deed of partnership dated May 17, 1957. Madanlal died on October 5, 1959, and another deed of partnership was executed on November 9, 1959, which took effect from October 6, 1959. Thus, for the assessment year 1960-61 there were two periods : the first period was from November 11, 1958, to October 5, 1959, and the other was from October...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Ganguly Vs. Sm. Rekha Debi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal299,(1975)1CompLJ147(Cal),79CWN455
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This rule was obtained by the landlord the petitioner in this Court on an application under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order dated May, 31, 1973 passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta as the appellate authority under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 in T. T. Appeal No. 1 of 1971. The facts are that the landlord on March 4, 1970 initiated proceedings for ejectment of the thika tenants the opposite parties before us under Section 5 of the Act in respect of a plot of land being portion of premises No. 39-B, Creek Row, Calcutta, on service of due notice as required under Section 4. The ground for ejectment was that the landlord, who had no other house or any other land in the city, required the said land for construction of his residential house as he was shortly going to retire from Government service and intended to reside therein with his family near his relatives and in a quiet surrounding in view of his heart disease an...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Cen ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC575(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner-company is a manufacturer of various kinds of textile goods. Its 1factories are situated at Delhi. It sells articles manufactured in its factories in different places in West Bengal and it is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.2. The Commercial Tax-Officer, Central Section, West Bengal, made an assessment order for the four quarters ending 30th June, 1962, in respect of the petitioner's business [vide annexure D to the petition). The Commercial Tax Officer by his assessment order disallowed the claim of the petitioner for exemption from payment of tax under Section 5(2) (a) (vi) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act read with Rule 3(28) of the Sales Tax Rules in respect of sales of stitched bed-sheets and stitched towels amounting to Rs. 1,44,198.13. The Commercial Tax Officer refused to accept the contention of the petitioner-company that the above items were cotton fabrics and subject to the levy of excise duty...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpa Nath Sarkar and ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal478
ORDER1. These two Rules arise out of two proceedings for pre-emption which have failed in the courts below. These Rules have been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court as it involves an important question as to whether an appeal lay before the learned District Judge in view of the decision of that court to the effect that no such appeal lay in the absence of any provision of law. The petitioners to this Court were the applicants for pre-emption in the courts below.2. The relevant facts are more or less, identical and are undisputed. The petitioners claimed that they were co-sharers tenants with the pro forma opposite parties in respect of the disputed Lands. The said pro forma opposite parties transferred the lands in dispute in favour of the principal opposite party in one case on 3-10-62 and in another on 1-10-62. Such transfers being effected by the co-sharer in respect of a part of the joint holding it was claimed that the petitioners are entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Charki Mica Mining Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1975
Reported in: [1978]111ITR193(Cal)
Deb, J.1. The following questions were framed by this court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the period of limitation was to be computed from January 14, 1965, and as such the appeal was not within time?'2. The assessment of the case relates to the assessment for the year 1961-62. The assessment order was passed by the Income-tax Officer on December 23, 1964. The assessee received the notice of demand on January 13, 1965, and filed the appeal on February 15, 1965, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before whom it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the appeal was not out of time, for, according to the assessee, the notice of demand was received on January 14, 1965 and not on the 13th January, 1965. But this contention was not accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who rejected the appeal as filed beyond time.3. The assessee then pre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »