Kolkata Court August 1975 Judgments
Shyama Pada Choudhury Vs. Saha Choudhury and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal122,80CWN29
Janah, J. 1. This appeal is by the judgment-debtor defendant No. 6 and is against the judgment and order dated 6th March, 1973 passed by A.K. Sarkar, J. allowing an application for execution of the decree for costs awarded in favour of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The facts giving rise to the execution application are briefly as follows: In 1951 one Ramanath Das and others instituted a suit being suit No. 3367 of 1951 in this Court against the defendants. That suit was dismissed with costs on the 1st May, 1959 and it was decreed that the plaintiff and the defendants Sailesh Choudhry, since deceased, and Shyamapada Choudhury the present appellant do pay to the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 then costs of the suit including the reserve costs and costs of commission to be taxed by the Taxing Officer of this Court. Against the said decree the plaintiff alone preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed only with this modification that the decree awarding costs against the plaintiff was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madhusudan Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1975
Reported in: 80CWN491,[1978]111ITR505(Cal)
Deb, J. 1. This income-tax reference relates to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The assessee was the owner of 2,328 shares of Ashoke Oil Industries Ltd., Baroda. These shares formed part of the capital assets of the assessee and their cost of acquisition was Rs. 28,906. The said company went into liquidation on November 21, 1958, and on March 6, 1970, the assessee received from the liquidator Rs. 81,480 as dividend, which relates to the assessment year 1960-61 and Rs. 46,560 as dividend on March 15, 1961, which relates to the assessment year 1961-62. These two sums were assessed as capital gains, under Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961, respectively, in the hands of the assessee in these two assessment years by the Income-tax Officer. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal has, however, allowed the second appeal filed by the assessee and has referr...
Tag this Judgment!Amarnath Mehra Vs. Income-tax Officer, a Ward and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1975
Reported in: [1977]110ITR376(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this application under article 226 of the Constitution, I am concerned with the assessment year 1963-64. Under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the time to file return by the assessee expired on the 30th September, 1963. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Act, however, the assessee had the privilege to file the return at any time before the completion of the assessment, that is to say, up to 31st March, 1968. In the meantime, on the 21st March, 1966,notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessment had been completed in the meantime. 2. The question is whether the assessment, which was completed, had been made pursuant to the return filed pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act or not. On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that notice under Section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction because, unless the time mentioned in Sub-section (4) of Section 139 expired, there was no failure on the part of the as...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadish Ch. Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal17
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. It appears that on the 14th of June, 1973 a notice under Section 269(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 was issued in respect of a property purchased by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said notice the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the 20th of September, 1973 and obtained a Rule nisi. The petitioner in his grounds challenging the notice, contends that Sections 269-C to 269-I and Section 269-R are ultra vires Article 19(1)(f). Article 14 and Article 31 of the Constitution. A Rule nisi was issued by this Court. This Court also granted an injunction restraining the respondents, the Income-tax Authorities, from taking any proceeding pursuant to the notice dated the 14th of June, 1973. The respondents have shown cause by counter-affidavits and counsel on behalf of the revenue submitted that the order of injunction should be vacated and the application dismissed. The order of injunction is continuing when this applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Netai Chandra Ghosh Vs. Gour Mohan Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Cal58
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the defendant No. 1 against orders allowing an amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 95 of 1971 in the Court of the first Munsif, Basirhat, against defendant No. 1. the petitioner before me and others for a declaration of joint title end possession in respect of the suit property. There was also a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from raising any structure disturbing the joint possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. The case was that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 had been in separate possession of different portions of the building in the suit property. The defendant No. 1 was making preparation for raising a structure in the adjacent vacant land which, if made, would cause serious inconvenience to the plaintiff's enjoyment of the property in his possession. The defence was that the parties were in possession of separate portions of the property by amicable arra...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Shankar Ram, Proprietor, Sankar Glass Industries Vs. Union of In ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1975
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT673(Cal)
Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J.1. In this Rule, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Collector of the Central Excise and the appellate order passed thereon imposing a duty on the petitioner to the extent of Rs 17,340.73 p. for manufacture and surreptitious removal of excisable goods without being shown in the statutory accounts. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner moved a revisional application which is still pending. While the revisional application is pending, the Collector of Central Excise issued notice on the petitioner for payment of Rs. 17,340.73p. as adjudicated by the order of the Collector of Central Excise.2. Mr. Majumdar on behalf of the petitioner contended that the demand is illegal as there is a prima facie infirmity in the order of the Collector of Central Excise. It is argued by Mr. Majumdar that one Babulal Mistri, Krishna Kamal Dutta Roy and another's statement was recorded behind the petitioner's back bu...
Tag this Judgment!Narayandas Paramananddas Vs. Income-tax Officer, J-ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1975
Reported in: [1977]107ITR79(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessment year involved in this application is 1963-64. The assessment for the aforesaid year was completed on 30th March, 1972(?). By a notice dated 30th March, 1972, the said assessment is sought to be reopened under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said attempt is under challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner which is a partnership firm states that the firm received a letter dated 21st June, 1971, on the 28th June, 1971, from the Income-tax Officer, 'J' Ward, Dist. IV(I), Calcutta, whereby the petitioner was informed that there was information in the possession of the said Income-tax Officer on the basis of which the Income-tax Officer held that M/s. Atlas Agencies of 51/59, Dariastan Street, Bombay-3, was a concern of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer wrote that the income of that concern should have been assessed in the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Kumar Gayen and ors. Vs. Amiya Gopal Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Cal387,79CWN1031
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. The only point in this appeal is whether the decree is executable. 2. The plaintiff judgment-debtor filed the Title Suit, being Title Suit No. 231 of 1956, praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the disputed tank or otherwise interfering with his possession and enjoyment thereof. This suit was decreed on a solenama entered into by and between the plaintiff andthe contesting defendant No. 1. The material provisions of the solenama broadly are as follows : '(a) The plaintiff admits the disputed tank to be the khas property of defendant No. 1. (b) The defendant No. 1 grants lease of the disputed tank to the plaintiff for a period of seven years at an annual rent of Rs. 750/-. (c) On the expiration of Chaitra, 1369 B. S. the plaintiff will vacate the disputed tank and make over peaceful possession thereof to the defendant No. 1 and in default the defendant No. 1 will be entitled to recovery of possession of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Bhudharmull Ramchunder Vs. the Investigating Officer, Government of We ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1975
Reported in: [1977]39STC184(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Bhudharmull Ramchunder, a partnership firm, chal lenging a notice dated 15th January, 1971, asking the petitioner-firm to produce books of account with all the supporting documents, relevant final accounts and balance sheet for the period from 1st July, 1969, to 14th March, 1970, under Section 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.2. The petitioner sells salt packed in gunny bags. According to the petitioner, the salt comes packed in gunny bags or loose and when the same comes loose, the quantities of salt are packed in gunny bags and sold as such. The petitioner states that no separate price is charged for the said bags which are used for packing of the salt. The petitioner further states that there was no express or implied agreement for sale of the gunny bags used for packing of salt with the parties to whom the salt was and/or is sold. Gunny bags are goods within the meaning of the...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder Charkraborty Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1975
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ305Cal
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order of transfer dated 9-12-74 passed by the Post Master General, West Bengal Circle by which the petitioner was transferred from Lake Gardens Post Office in South Calcutta Division to Janka S.O. in Contai Sub-Division The said order of the Post Master General was conveyed to the petitioner by the super-intendent of Post Office, South Division by his memorandum dated 10-12-74.2. The petitioner is a postman posted at Like Gardens Post Office for the last 3 years, I is alleged that petitioner is an active and important number of the All India Postal Employees Union. On or about 17th December, 1974 the petitioner received by a registered post the impugned order of transfer stating inter alia that he would be struck off forthwith from the Establishment of the South Calcutta Division and 10 be borne in the establishment of the Contai Sub-Division, where he was transferred and posted to work as a postman at Janka Sub-Post Office Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »