Kolkata Court August 1976 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.K. Naha and Bros.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1976
Reported in: [1979]117ITR19(Cal)
Deb, J.1. The following question is involved in this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in holding that the IAC travelled beyond his jurisdiction, and accordingly, the penalty order passed by him was null and void ?'2. The penalty proceedings arose out of the assessment year 1963-64. The assessee is a firm. The facts stated by the Tribunal may be briefly stated as follows :The ITO brought Rs. 10,263 to tax as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources and issued a notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the assessee for concealment of Rs. 10,263 as its income. As the minimum penalty imposable on Rs. 10,263 exceeded Rs. 1,000, the ITO referred the penalty proceeding to the IAC before whom it was admitted by the assessee's representative that this amount was wrongly shown by the assessee's accountant in the balance-sheet without verifying the correct facts....
Tag this Judgment!Kanailal Dutta Vs. Sadhan Chandra Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal173
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the defendant-tenant arises out of a suit for eviction by the respondent-landlord on the ground of reasonable requirement of the premises by the landlord. The admitted case of the parties is that the plaintiff has resided himself, his two wives, two sons, the plaintiff's nephew and 4 children, two of whom live in the disputed premises Second daughter and her husband Kali Krishna Santra (Ghar Jamai) also live in the said premises. There are altogether 10 rooms, 6 in the first floor and 4 in the ground floor. Out of the 6 rooms of the first floor, 3 are bedrooms, one kitchen, one thakurghar and one kitchen-cum-store room. Out of the 4 rooms of the ground floor, 2 are bedrooms, 1 kitchen and one dining room besides a space underneath the staircase used for storing coal and fuel etc. The appellant defendant is in occupation of 1 room and 1 kitchen of the first floor of the house. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the de...
Tag this Judgment!Haripore Farming Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal12
B.C. Ray, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No. 35 dated March 26, 1973 passed in Arbitration case No. 7 of 1971 (valuation) by the Arbitrator, 24 Parganas and Calcutta.2. C. S. plots Nos. 6, 9, 10, 11, 43 and 86 of Mouza Haripur, P. S. Habra, District 24 Parganas with standing structures and trees thereon had been requisitioned under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules made under the Defence of India Act, 1939 on or about April 25, 1942. The said plots of lands were subsequently acquired under Section 5(1) of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 on October 16, 1947. The Collector of 24 Parganas (North) made assessment of compensation in respect of the acquisition of the said plots of land in the name of the recorded tenants. It has been stated by the petitioners that the Collector never communicated the said assessment of compensation in respect of the said acquisition of land to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Prayag Deb Ganguly Vs. Sm. Rama Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal1,81CWN308
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. The question that arises in this Reference is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit on a Negotiable Instrument which has been instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of a sum below Rs. 5,000/- in view of the provisions of the Calcutta City Civil Court Act, 1953.2. In Suit No. 1459 of 1966 (Cal), (Kamalabala Mahapatra v. Golam Khan). Mr. Justice Ghose has held that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and determine a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure when the value of the suit is below Rs. 5,000/-. This decision was given on 7-12-1971.3. The present suit being Suit No. 173 of 1973, (Prayag Deb Ganguli v. Sm. Rama Roy) is a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,235/-. It came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury on 19th September, 1973. Mr. Justice Roy Chowdhury was inclined to pass a decree but in view of the earlier decision ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Jardine Henderson Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR802(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts admitted and/or found out of which this reference arises may be shortly noted as follows :2. Messrs. Jardine Henderson Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1958-59. The relevant previous year ended on the 31st March, 1958. The assessment was completed on the 30th December, 1961, and the total income was computed at Rs. 21,70,341. The assessee had paid advance tax of Rs. 9,10,250. The tax due under the assessment was Rs. 8,48,541*36, the amount paid in excess being Rs. 61,708-64.3. On such excess, interest was allowable under Section 18A(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was calculated to be Rs. 9,256.31,4. An appeal against this assessment order was preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, where a number of grounds were urged and considered. It was noted that relief under Section 49D(2) had been allowed by the Income-tax Officer subsequent to the assessment on certificates filed by the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam Basak Vs. Santosh Kumar Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal17
N.C. Mukherji, J.1. This Rule was issued on an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against order No. 14 dated December 8, 1973 passed by Sri A. N. Mitra, District Delegate (6th SubordinateJudge), Alipore, in Succession Certificate Case. No. 119 of 1973.2. The facts of the case, however, cannot be gathered from the application. On going through the order it is seen that the petitioner filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act praying for the grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the securities and debts due to the estate of the deceased Gopal Chandra Basak. The opposite parties filed a petition of objection. As such the matter became contested. The learned Court below after examining the oral and documentary evidence on record allowed the objection raised by the opposite parties and consequently the petitioner's application for grant of succession certificate was struck off. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. and Sons Vs. Dy. Secy., Land and Land Revenue Deptt. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal232
ORDERBimal Chandra Basak, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order of requisition passed on 22nd June, 1976 under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).2. The petitioner's case, as made out in the petition, is as follows : The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 and having its office at No. 9, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta-1. It is stated that one Messrs. Cutch Oil & Allied Industries (1949) Private Ltd. is the owner of No. 9, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta, formerly known as No. 165, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta. It is stated that the petitioner is the landlord and/or lessee of a portion of the second floor of No. 9, Rabindra Sarani, Calcutta. The second floor of the said building contains two main halls and they have been let out and/or rented to the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta. The fi...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chandra Mukherji Vs. Gopal Chandra Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal459
B.C. Ray, J.1. This is an appealat the instance of the defendants against the Judgment and order No. 58 datedJuly 18, 1975, passed by the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, at Alipore in Title Suit No. 15 of 1974 allowing the plaintiff's application for appointment of a receiver.2. The plaintiff Sri Gopal Chandra Hazra instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 15 of 1974 in the 4th Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore for a decree for dissolution of partnership executed and registered on 4th September, 1964 as well as for dissolution of the second partnership registered on 4th October, 1969. and for accounts of the partnership business and for appointment of a receiver.3. In the said suit the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of a receiver stating inter alia that the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who were at one time employees of Patterson Engineering Co. (India) Private Ltd. constituted a partnership business under the name and style of 'Pearl Filter Enterprises'. The...
Tag this Judgment!Nurjahan Bibi Vs. Md. Kajim Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal90
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff Nur Jahan Bibi against the judgment and the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Murshidabad in the first appeal seting aside the decision of the learned Munsif of the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.2. Nur Jahan Bibi filed the original suit against the defendant Md. Kejem Ali for dissolution of her marriage with the latter. The allegation of the plaintiff is that she was married with Kajem Ali according to Mahommedan Law. In the year 1964, she brought a suit against the defendant for dissolution of her marriage. In that suit the defendant submitted a written statement and therein he stated that the plaintiff was of bad character, that she was enamoured of one Asgar Ali and that she committed adultery with him. During evidence also the defendant made such statement. In consequence of these statements of the defendant, she is entitled to dissolve her marriage with the defendant on the basis of 'Li'an...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Sankaribala Dutta Vs. Sm. Asita Barani Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal289
Sen, J. 1. This appeal from original decree arises out of a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits. The said suit being Title Suit No. 65 of 1966 having been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge Birbhum, by the judgment and decree dated August 22, 1968, the plaintiff No. 2, Sankari Bala has preferred the present appeal. 2. The suit was originally instituted by the appellant and her mother Rash Bilasini Chandra and the latter having died pending the suit and her right, title and interest having devolved on plaintiff No. 2, the appellant, she herself proceeded with the suit. Their case shortly was that Rash Bilasini was the first wife of Nafar Chandra Chandra and plaintiff No 2 Sankari Bala is the daughter of Nafar by Rash Bilasini the first wife. The only son born of Rash Bilasini having died at the age of 5 or 6 years, Nafar married for the second time the defendant No. 1 Asita Barani Chandra when Nafar could have no more son by the plaintiff No. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »