Kolkata Court February 1975 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electric Construction and Equipment Com ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1975
Reported in: 79CWN861,[1976]104ITR101(Cal)
Deb, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the following question of law:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the factory at Cossipore can be said to have been formed by the reconstruction of business already in existence or by the transfer to it of machinery and plant previously used in any other business so as to fall within the scope of Section 15C(2)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?'2. In this reference we are concerned with the assessment years 1957-58 to 1961-62. The relevant year ended on 31st October, preceding the relevant assessment years. The assessee was incorporated as a public limited company on June 12, 1945. In the same year it took on lease a factory situated at Hazra Road and started manufacturing switch boards, transformers, etc., and thereafter purchased the said factory in the year 3946 and continued to carry on business therein.3. In 1956 the assessee started a new...
S.P. Sinha and ors. Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ76
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of three accused-petitioners directed against two orders dated the 28th August, 1972 and the 29th September, 1972 passed by Sri S- C. Nundy. Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Asansole in Case No. C/3912 of 1969 pending before him under Section 9(1) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Scheme, 1948 for a contravention of the provisions of paragraph 11 (6) of the Coal Mines Bonus Scheme, 1948 rejecting respectively the petitioners' prayer for pleading guilty and also their prayer for adjournment2. The points involved are points of law arising in the context of facts which need not be set down in details excepting for a consideration of the points involved. The accused petitioners are some of the Directors of M/s. Macneill & Barry Ltd-, having its office at 2. Fairlie Place, Calcutta. The said company was the Managing Agent of the M/s. Equitable Coal Co. Ltd.. who are the owners of the Bhaladi Sand Line. The complainant-opposite ...
State of West Bengal Vs. A.K. Ghosh and Bros
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal227,79CWN349
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and it arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent for recovery of money.2. The respondent entered into a contract with the appellant for the execution of the following works :--(1) The construction of the main hospital building, kitchen and morgue of 58 bedded Sub-Divisional Hospital at Arambagh in the District of Hooghly. (2) The construction of the infectious wards and staff quarters of the said hospital. 3. The terms of the contract contained in the tender form issued on behalf of the appellant includes a provision for arbitration in Clause 25 thereof which provides inter alia that all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever, arising out of or relating to the contract shall be referred to the sole arbit...
In Re: Dulal Chand Auddy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal341
ORDERR. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal is by the claimant Sardarmull Kankaria against the valuation arrived at by the President Calcutta Improvement Tribunal in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The premises No. 19, Chatta-walla Gulee appertaining to the Calcutta Improvement Trust Scheme No. LXVI in award No. 40 of the Calcutta Municipality was acquired. Notice under Section 43(2) of the Calcutta Improvement Act was published on 9th October, 1952. Declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 4-8-1955. Notice under Section 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was served on 26-6-1956. The claim petition was filed before the Land Acquisition Collector on 6-7-1956. The award was made on 19-8-1959 and the Reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed on 24-8-1959 claiming an increase in the market value of the premises acquired and the statutory allowance of 15 per cent. with interest on the additional amount of ...
Netal Das and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ957
ORDERR. Bhattacharya, J.1. These two revisional applications have been heard together as they arise out of the same judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Mid-nanore in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1974. The application No. 725 before this Court has been filed by Netai Das. Go-peswar Kali, Nagen SenaDati and Chitta-ranjan Shit, the accused persons, against the judgment by which they have beea acauitted of the charge under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but the eonvio-tipn under Section 143. Indian Penal Code was confirmed and the order of sentence passed against them has also been upheld. In the other Appln. No. 837 of 1974 the informant at whose instance the case was started has sought to set aside the order of acquittal Dassed bv the aDPellate court below.2. In short, the case of the prosecution was that the accused persons alone with many others formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of reaping the paddy from the land of Radha-bai Rathi and thereafter actual...
Kanti Mohan Mondal Vs. Naba Kumar Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal347
ORDER1. On January 25, 1965 the plaintiff executed a deed of sale in respect of his residential hou.se at Gondalpara, Chander-nagore in favour of defendant No. 1, son of the other two defendants and simultaneously two other deeds were executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff namely (1) an agreement to reconvey the property to the plaintiff on his paying a sum of Rupees 8,500/- within two and half years and (2) a deed of lease in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. A few months thereafter, the plaintiff executed another deed of sale on June 25, 1965 in favour of defendant No. 2, wife of defendant No. 3 and the said defendant on her part executed a deed of lease in respect of the house in favour of the plaintiff.2. In the plaint, the plaintiff claims that all these transactions really represent loans obtained on mortgage by the plaintiff from defendant No. 3 and to avoid the provisions of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, all those sub...
Sm. Shanti Neogy Vs. 1st Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal415
ORDERChittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. On April 25, 1968 the West Bengal State Government issued a notification under Section 49 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 for acquisition of premises No. 81/1/1A, Canal Circular Road for a street scheme known as Scheme No. XIII-M.2. The- petitioner has claimed that the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, had served a notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act upon her to appear before the First Land Acquisition Collector to state the nature of interest in the said land which was proposed to be acquired under the above scheme. On January 11, 1974 the First Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award for compensation for the acquisition of the aforesaid land. Thereafter the First Land Acquisition Collector served a notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act upon the petitioner in respect of the said Award and further intimated the petitioner that if she was willing to receive a sum of Rs. 70,000/90 p.(Rupees seventy thousand and ninety...
Tapan Kumar Ganguly Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1521
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 passed by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas on the 17th of May, 1973. in exercise of the powers conferred upon him 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 made with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In view of our finding, as hereinafter stated, it is not necessary to set out the grounds of detention served on the detenu.2. Mr. Kundu, learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule raised various contentions before us which were not found acceptable by us. But in respect of the procedural requirements, Mr. Kundu submitted before us that the detention is illegal in as much as the fact of making of the order was not reported 'forthwith' as required by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›