Kolkata Court January 1976 Judgments
Sachindra Nath Sarkar and ors. Vs. Binapani Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal277,(1976)1CompLJ255(Cal),80CWN289
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. This is an appeal against judgment and decree of reversal. Plot Number 83 Mouja Andul P.S. Sankrail is a common passage in which the plaintiffs and the defendants, as transferees, are co-sharers. The common passage is flanked on one side by the houses of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and on the other side by the houses of the plaintiff No. 3 and other defendants. According to the plaintiffs' case, the common passage was created for ingress and egress, space for repairs of structures, passage for light and air, and rain water and also for laying electric wires. There was an agreement to keep the common passage open to the sky for beneficent enjoyment of the dwelling houses on either sides of the common passage and their privacy was thereby maintained. The defendants by force completed all arrangements to construct a balcony from their house over the common passage. It was said that the defendants had no right to make such construction, which if made would cause pe...
Tag this Judgment!T.C. Banerjee Vs. B.V.S. Rao
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal425,80CWN325
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. The delay in moving the application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the circumstances is condoned and by consent of parties the application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code is taken up for hearing.2. This Rule has been directed against an order (No. 30) dated 7-6-1974 whereby plaintiff's application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was rejected.3. The facts relevant are in short as follows. The plaintiff as landlord instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises on eviction of the defendant therefrom which the defendant held as a monthly tenant. The summons in the suit was sought to be served in the usual manner but the process server submitted a report to the effect that on August 22, 1972 he went to the suit premises and tendered the summons to the opposite party. As the opposite party refused to accept the summons by acknowledging receipt thereof the process server served the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cossipore Properties
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1976
Reported in: 80CWN571,[1977]107ITR965(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which has been initiated by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-III, Calcutta. The facts found and/or admitted as appearing in the statement of the case and the annexures thereto may be shortly noted as follows :2.The assesses is one Messrs. Cossipore Properties Ltd., Calcutta. Two individuals, namely, Budhmal Jain and Nirmal Kumar Jain, had entered into a partnership under a deed dated the 17th April, 1959, and constituted the assessee. It has been recited in the deed of partnership and it has also been found as a fact that prior to the constitution of the partnership, Budhmal Jain had been carrying on business under the name and style of Cossipore Properties and was trading by way of taking lease of godowns and letting out the same to various persons on rent. After the partition of India in 1947, the trade in raw jute in India had suffered a set back and a number of concerns whic...
Tag this Judgment!Niranjan Modak Vs. Lakshmi Narayan GuIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal322,(1976)1CompLJ168(Cal)
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant Niranjan Modak who suffered a decree for ejectment in respect of the suit premises in the original suit filed by the plaintiff Lakshminarayan Guin and others, the respondents before this Court. In the first appeal below also Niranjan Modak was unsuccessful.2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners of the suit property, a house and the defendant was a tenant under them in respect of the premises in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 100 payable according to Bengali Calendar month. The defendant did not pay any rent for the suit premises to the plaintiffs in spite of demand. Moreover, the plaintiffs required the premises for reconstruction of a new house on the land for their own use. As the defendant did not vacate the house in spite of service of notice to quit, the suit was filed for recovery of khas possession and also for arrears of rents. The defendant filed a written statement stating that there w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Cement Mines and Industries Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR739(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee is a company. The assessment year is 1948-49. The previous year ended on May 31, 1947.2. In the accounting year, the assessee sold at a profit its mining rights including its rights under a sub-lease to a 100% subsidiary company, Karkata Collieries Ltd. The Income-tax Officer has brought the surplus to tax by rejecting the contentions of the assessee that the assessment should be made under Section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that the said surplus should be exempted under the fourth proviso to that section.3. There was also an excess on realisation over the written down value of the plant, machinery and the buildings transferred by the assessee to the said subsidiary company in the same accounting year. The excess, brought to tax by the Income-tax Officer, has been reduced to Rs. 10,171 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.4. The Appellate Tribunal has, however, allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sundar Jalan and anr. and Asiatic Oxygen and Acetylene Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: [1977]47CompCas61(Cal),[1977]106ITR275(Cal)
Sudhanmay Basu, J.1. These are six rules arising out of applications made under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing complaints under Sections 276(b), 276B, 276(d) and 276D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and some orders passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.2. It appears that complaints were filed against the directors of the Asiatic Oxygen and Acetylene Company Limited and Asiatic Oxygen Company Limited and one Mr. K.C. Gangwal, designated as the principal officer of the said companies, for failure to deduct income-tax from the salary of the employees, for failure to submit returns in time, for failure to deduct income-tax and super-tax on dividends for certain period under various sections of the Income-tax Act. To be precise, the Revision Case No. 271 of 1975 relates to a complaint for delay in submitting returns under Section 276(b) of the Income-tax Act. The returns were due on April 30, 1971, but the same were filed o...
Tag this Judgment!The Asiatic Oxygen and Acetylene Company and ors. Vs. the State and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1596
Sudhamay Basu, J.1. These are six Rules arising out of applications made under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing complaints under Sections 276(b), 276(B), 276(d) and 276(D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and same orders passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta,2. It appears that complaints were filed against the Directors of the Asiatic Oxygen and Acetylene Company Limited and Asiatic Oxygen Company Limited and one Mr. K. C. Gangwal, designated as the Principal Officer of the said companies, for failure to deduct income-tax from the salary of the employees, or failure to submit returns in time, for failure to deduct income-tax and super tax on dividends for certain period under various sections of the Income-tax Act. To be precise the Revision Case No, 271 of 1975 relates to a complaint for delay in submitting returns under Section 276(b) of the Income-tax Act. The returns were due on 30-4-1971 but the same were filed on 12-1...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kanto Mahato Vs. Banka Behari Mahato and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal215
ORDERR. Bhattacharya, J.1. This civil revision arises out of an order passed by the Munsif at Purulia dismissing an application under Section 38 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940 in Miscellaneous Case No, 53 of 1972.2. The petitioner before this Court is the person who filed the application under Section 38 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act. His allegation was that he took certain amounts of money from Sanatan Mahato for meeting his family expenses. He executed a sale deed in favour of the opposite party Sanatan Mahato in respect of certain lands and that amount was taken as loan. The opposite party got possession of the lands and executed an agreement for reconveyance of the lands. The petitioner's case is that in fact the transaction was a loan transaction coming under the purview of Section 38 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act. According to the petitioner he requested the opposite party Sanatan Mahato for statement of accounts and also for execution of a registered deed in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Monoj Kanti Bose and ors. Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ285Cal
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.1. An interesting question of some importance concerning the rights and obligations of the Management and the Award Staff of a nationalized Bank arises for consideration in this writ petition.2. Six employees of Bank of India, a nationalized Bank, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), and Bank of India Employees' Union, the recognized union of the Bank, have presented this writ petition in which the validity of two orders or notices passed by the Management of the Bank have been questioned. The first order or notice dated 25.6.1975 is contained in Annexure ('A') to the petition and is in the following terms:NOTICEDeduction of pro rata wages for mass demonstration.Certain members of award staff of Calcutta Branch and Regional Offices held mass demonstrations on the following days leaving their respective desks: Date Time3.6.1975 2-30 p.m. to 4.30 a.m. 2 hours4.6.1975 11-10 a.m. to 11-35 a.m. 25 minutes6.6.1975 2-30 p.m. to 3-00 p.m. 30 minutes17.6.1975 2-45 p.m. t...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Nath Ghosh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1296
ORDERA.N. Banerjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 16-7-1975 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat in a case under Sections 13/14 of the Foreigners Act. It appears that on 27-8-1974 three foreign nationals who had no passport or visa with them were arrested by the police on the allegations that on that day they were trying to cross over to Bangladesh with three gunny bags on their heads. They were arrested along with another and the aforesaid bags were found to contain biris with a sale memo dated 27-8-1974 for the aforesaid biris purported to have been issued by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of one Sunil Kumar Mukherjee. The petitioner No. 2 is said to be an employee of the petitioner No. 1. During investigation it transpired as per allegation of the prosecution that they were carrying an illegal business of sending the biris to Bangladesh. They were also made accused. Subsequently, charge-sheet was submitted. The three foreign nationals sent a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »