Kolkata Court November 1975 Judgments
Asoke Chatterjee Vs. Sm. Manisha Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ876
P.C. Borooah, J.1. On December 23, 1974 Sm. Manisha Mukherjee, the Opposite Party in this Rule, filed a complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging commission of offences by the petitioner Asoke Chatterjee under Sections 417 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and her mother Sm. Pratima Mukherjee but thought that further probe would be necessary and accordingly directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central, to make a personal enquiry and submit a report. On January 27, 1975 the record was put up before Sri R. N. Kali, Metropolitan Magistrate, who was dealing with the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The police had in the meantime submitted a report which did not support the complaint. The complainant then made an application for transfer of the case to some other Magistrate for favour of disposal, Sri Kali directed the records to be placed before the learned Chief Metropolitan Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Santimoy Dey Vs. Suriya Properties Private Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal81
Sanker Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. On the 16th August, 1958, the State of West Bengal requisitioned three rooms on the first floor and one room on the second floor of premises No. 153/34, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta-6 from Suriya Properties Pvt. Ltd. These rooms were allotted for residential purposes of Shri Chandrahas Dey, an employee of the State Government who was working at the material time at the Lake Depot of the State Transport Corporation. 2. On April 1, 1965, Chandrahas was transferred to Durgapur. He requested the State Government that the requisitioned property should be transferred to Santimoy Dey, the present appellant, who was ao Upper Division Clerk of the Health Department of the Government and a younger brother of Chandrahas. He asked for this transfer to enable the members of his family to reside in the requisitioned premises. The Government of West Bengal, it appears, complied With the request. Thereupon Suriya Properties Private Limited, as the owner of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Cachar Plywood Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR470(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges an order of transfer of its case from the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Karimganj, to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XXXIII, Calcutta. The said order was passed on the 23rd of December, 1972. The challenge is based on three grounds. It was urged, firstly, that no opportunity was given to the petitioner ; secondly, it was submitted that no reason had been recorded for the transfer and, thirdly, it was urged that the impugned order was passed mala fide. Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides as follows :'127. Power to transfer cases.--(1) The Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from any Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers subordinate to him to any other Income-tax Officer or Income-tax Officers a...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath and Son Private Ltd. Vs. Pandam Tea Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1975
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas577(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee delivered on June 27, 1973. The appellant claims to be a creditor of the respondent. The loan was advanced subject to certain debentures in 1958. It is stated that the loan was acknowledged in balance-sheets as it stood on the 31st December, 1967, which was signed by the directors on the 3rd June, 1968. But difficulty has been created by the alleged acknowledgment in the balance-sheet as at the 31st December, 1968, signed by the directors on the 26th July, 1970.2. At page 6 in the list of liabilities the following entry appears :' Secured Loans:As per Schedule ' A' Rs. 9,34,545.' 3. Schedule ' A' is at page 12. In Schedule ' A' we find the following entry :' Raghunath & Son Private Ltd. (Partly secured by deposit of the company's own debentures as per contra) (unconfirmed): Rs. 1,49,110' 4. Then at page 2 of the report of the board of directors appears the following paragraph:' Your direc...
Tag this Judgment!Pandam Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Darjeeling Commercial Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1975
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas15(Cal),80CWN172
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Ghose J. dated May 3 and May 13, 1971, rejecting the appellant-company's petition for permanent stay of winding-up proceedings against it.2. The respondent, on service of a notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, filed a petition stating that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was lent and advanced by it to the appellant on a second charge of the assets of the company and the amount was a running loan from year to year shown in the balance-sheets of the company. The loan was acknowledged in the last balance-sheet of the company as on December 31, 1967, and was also otherwise acknowledged in writing by the appellant from time to time. No part of the loan was paid in spite of the notice under Section 434 of the Act and, accordingly, the company should be wound up. This petition, being Company Petition No. 225 of 1970, was admitted by K.L. Roy J. on January 19, 1971, and necessary directions for advertisements were issued.3. The appe...
Tag this Judgment!Purusattam Das Pashari Vs. First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal83
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of premises Nos. 12-A and 12-B, Russel Street, Calcutta. Both these premises were formerly numbered as 12, Russel Street. The said premises were purchased by the petitioner in the year 1960. The total area was 9 Bighas 1 Cottah 4 Chittaks and 40 Square feet, of which more or less approximately 24 Cottahs fell in what is now premises No. 12-A, Russel Street, and the balance area measuring approximately 7 Bighas 17 Cottahs 4 Chittaks and 40 Square feet fell in the premies what is now known as 12-B, Russel Street, Calcutta. On the 11th of November, 1968 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of a portion of premises No. 12-B, Russei Street, Calcutta, and a portion of premises No. 3, Russel Street, Calcutta, which is across the road. The said notification was published on the 5-12-1968 in the Calcutta Gazette. It was stated that 0.2250 hectare of premises No. 12-B, Russel Street were ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bejoy Kumar Almal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1975
Reported in: [1977]106ITR743(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, we are called upon to determine the method of computation of income from house property where more than one person jointly own such property in ascertained shares.2. For the assessment year 1962-63, Bejoy Kumar Almal, the assessee, filed his return for income-tax. At the relevant time he was the owner of undivided one-third share in a house property and along with his brothers, the other co-sharers, they and their families completely occupied the house.3. The Income-tax Officer in making the assessment order followed the valuation of an earlier year without making any particular computation.4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and suggested computation of such income by first determining the annual value of the entire property and thereafter the value of his one-third undivided share. From the amount ascertai...
Tag this Judgment!Bird and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Kalyan Kumar Sen Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1975
Reported in: 1988(37)ELT70(Cal)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of K.L Roy, J. on August 28,1970, by which his Lordship disposed of a Rule. By the said Rule, the petitioner Bird and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. challenged certain notices issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise under Section 28(1) and an order made under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The petitioner, who is the appellant before us, carries on business, Inter alia, of export of jute specialities. These jute specialities are jute manufactures within the meaning of Item 2 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act. Under the said item, duty is payable on the said goods at he rate of Rs. 500 per tonne.3. By a notification dated June 19,1968, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, the Government of India exempted the articles specified in Column 2 of the table appended to the said notification from so much of the duty leviable thereon as was in excess of the duty leviable at...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Iswar Damodar Jew and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal46
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. This second appeal is by the State of West Bengal, the defendant in the original suit against the judgment and the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Midnapore in the first appeal setting aside the judgment and the decree of the trial Court of the Munsif at Ghatal and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Sri Sri Iswar Damodar Jew which was dismissed on contest by the trial Court.2. The allegations made in the plaint may be stated in brief. The plaintiff Sri Sri Iswar Damodar Jew was the family Deity of Sarat Chandra Pramanik. During his lifetime Sarat Chandra Pramanik was the shebait of the Deity. The suit properties, several plots of land mentioned in Schedule to the plaint were purchased by the Deity, Sri Sri Iswar Damodar Jew with the money of the Deity's fund created by the said Sarat Chandra as shebait from one Satish Chandra Chattopadhyay by a registered deed of sale dated the 30th Baisak, 1354 B.S. The said properties have always been tre...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sakti Rani Roy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1975
Reported in: [1978]115ITR722(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. The questions, in this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are as follows:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that notwithstanding the assessment made for the earlier assessment years the ITO was entitled to reject the assessee's explanation based on the findings for the earlier assessment years and on that ground to come to his own conclusion regarding the deposits involved in the present assessment year ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is material to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs, 1,00,000 was income of the assessee from undisclosed sources?' 2. The assessment year is 1960-61. The previous year ends on March 31, 1960. The return was filed by the assessee showing an income of Rs. 5,944. In the course of the assessment proceedings it was found by the ITO that the assessee had an account in the names of two firms and in that account...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »