Kolkata Court June 1975 Judgments
Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1975
Reported in: [1978]111ITR231(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This reference arises in respect of the assessment year 1961-62. The facts found are that Singho Mica Mining Co. Ltd., the assessee, filed its return for the said assessment year on the 28th June, 1962, on which assessment was made on the 4th March, 1966. Subsequently, it was found that the assessee bad not complied with the provisions of Section 18A(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and failed to file its estimate but in the original assessment the Income-tax Officer did not charge any interest under Section 18A(8) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Commissioner considered that this omission to charge interest has resulted in prejudice to the interest of the revenue and after hearing the assessee passed an order under, Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, directingthe Income-tax Officer to compute and recover such interest. Interest was levied accordingly.2. In the meantime, the assessee had preferred an appeal from the original order of assessment...
Tag this Judgment!Suprovat Bose Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ313
Sudhamay Basu, J.1. This is a petition by the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1970 (Suprobhat Bose v. The State of West Bengal) to set off the period of detention undergone by him during investigation and trial against the term of imprisonment imposed upon him, in accordance with Section 428 Criminal P.C.2. Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is as follows : Where the accused person has, on conviction, been sentenced to imprisonment for a term, the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during investigation enquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction and the liability of such persons who undergo imprisonment on such conviction shall be restricted to the remainders, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him.3. The Supreme Court, in the case of B. P. Andre v. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi reported in : 1975CriLJ182 sp...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta State Transport Corporation, Calcutta Vs. Kamal Prakash De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal2
M.N. Roy, J.1. The respondent, an Architectural Draftsman in the services of Planning Division, Housing Directorate under the State of West Bengal, boarded double decker bus No. WBS 920 of route No. 10 belonging to the appellant Calcutta State Transport Corporation, which plies from Ballvgunge to Howrah, on May 11, 1966. After boarding the said bus he occupied a seat just over the rear left wheels on the lower deck. The inner tyre of the said rear left wheel had a burst, as a result whereof he received bleeding injuries with comminuted fracture over both the bones of his left leg.2. On the happening of the said accident, due to the bursting of the tyre, he on July 7, 1966 filed an application for compensation under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas, who incidentally is the Motor Accidents Claims Compensation Tribunal for Calcutta and 24-Parganas. The said application was registered as M.A.C. Case No. 36 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Hasimara Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Company Law Board and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ50
ORDERSankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. In an application under Article 226 of that Constitution, which was heard by Mr. Justice P. K. Banerjee. the petitioner. Hasimara Industries Ltd (the appellant before us) challenged the validity of a search warrant which the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta had issued on June 14, 1971. Banerjee. J. by a judgment delivered on December 13. 1973 has dismissed the application. The present appeal is directed against that judgment.2. Between July and September, 1970 the Officers of the Directorate of Inspection, Company Law Board posted in Calcutta, inspected under Sect or. 209 (4) of the Companies Act, the book; of account, documents and papers of Britannia Engineering Co. Ltd. and some other Companies forming the McLeod Group of Companies now known as the Bajorta Group of Companies In course of this inspection, according to the respondents, it appeared from the books of account that the Directors and persons carrying on or conducting the business of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Purna Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1815
N.C. Talukdar, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of one Purna Chandra Chatterjee. The application is with notice to the State and is opposed.2. The petitioner is stated to be a businessman. A spate of litigations has ensued between him and one Girindra Nath Roy and Dhirendra Nath Roy who are owners of premises No. 1, Dharamtala Street. A title suit also has been started and a criminal case is also pending against the said Roys. Proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also started at the instance of the petitioner. On or about the 14th June, 1975 Girindra Nath Roy had filed a petition before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta alleging offences under Sections 465, 467, 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code purported to have been committed by the petitioner in respect of an impugned document and the said petition was directed by the learned Magistrate to be treated as the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: F. and C. Osler (India) Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1975
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas698(Cal)
Ajay K. Bash, J. 1. This is a misfeasance summons taken out by the official liquidator in November, 1963, under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act against six respondents, respondent No. 1, Haridas Mundhra ; respondent No. 2, his father, Gwaldas Mundhra ; respondent No, 3, his brother,Tulsidas Mundhra; respondent No. 4, Manickchand Bagree ; respondent No. 5, L.R. Josse, since deceased, and respondent No. 6, Shew Bux Mohta. Of the six respondents, Haridas Mundhra, though he was duly served with the summons yet he has neither entered appearance nor has defended these proceedings or appeared before me except just before the commencement of the proceeding. Early this year, an application was filed by him and others by his counsel, Mr. Partha Mukharji, for adjournment on frivolous and mala fide grounds which I dismissed by a speaking order.2. A point was raised by the learned counsel appearing for some other respondents that this application should not continue in its present form as Harid...
Tag this Judgment!Reform Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1975
Reported in: [1978]111ITR852(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, we are concerned with the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee is a private limited company to which the provisions of Section 23A are applicable. For the said year the income assessed under Section 23(3) was Rs. 15,56,405 and the tax payable thereon was Rs. 7,00,382. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, arrived at the distributable surplus at Rs. 8,56,023. The assessee had declared a dividend of Rs. 3,71,000 only. The statutory percentage applicable to tbe assessee was 50% and, therefore, as the dividend declared by the assessee fell short of the statutory percentage, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why additional super-tax should not be levied. In response to this, the assessee urged that if past losses were considered and the estimated past tax liabilities were deducted from the available distributable surplus the dividend declared was adequate. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Cooch Behar Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Cent ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1975
Reported in: [1978]112ITR150(Cal)
Deb, J.1. The following questions are involved in this reference under the Income-tax Act, 1922 : '(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have held that the payment of a larger dividend than that declared by the assessee would have been unreasonable (2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in determining the distributbale surpuls, only the net tax payable by the assessee should be taken into consideration without any regard to the credit given under Section 18(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company to which Section 23A of the Act applies. The assessment year is 1954-55. The previous, year ends on December 31, 1953. The total income was determined at Rs. 2,15,825. The tax payable thereon, after deducting the amount treated as tax paid under Section 18(5), was found to be Rs. 45,297. In the general meeting held on March 31, 195...
Tag this Judgment!Jokai (Assam) Tea Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bhawani Shankar Bagaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal18
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is a suit by two plaintiffs Jokai (Assam) Tea Company Limited end the British India Tea Company Limited both of whom are English Companies having their registered offices in London and also carrying on business by branch office at 21, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta, within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant is Bhawani Sankar Bagaria who for self and Karta representing a Hindu undivided family carries on business under the name and style of Girdharilal Sardarmall at Dibrugarh outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and also has a place of business at Commerce House, 3rd floor, Room No. 4-A of No. 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue in the town of Calcutta. It is alleged that the plaintiffs were each owners of tea gardens. It is further alleged that by an agreement contained in or evidenced by a writing the defendant was appointed the agent of the plaintiffs to supply foodgrains allotted from the Government sources for consumption by the workers of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Agarwala Vs. Bhagirathi Gore and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal445
Sen Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff who has challenged the judgment and decree passed by Sri P. Chatterjee, Addl. District Judge, 5th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 1411 of 1967 reversing the decision of Shri L. K. Pal, Subordinate Judge. 9th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 78 of 1965. 2. The plaintiff brought the suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court on the allegation that he purchased the suit property from defendant No. 1 by a registered kobala dated 18-11-55; on the some day defendant No. 1 executed a registered kabuliyat in favour of him and the defendant No. 1 became a tenant under the plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 40-8-0 in respect of the suit premises. 3. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 357 of 1956 in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Baraset for ejectment of defendant No 1 from the suit premises and for mesne profits. Defendant No. 1 contested the said suit and for the first time disclosed that he executed a registered deed of agreement...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »