Kolkata Court March 1978 Judgments
J. Thomas and Co. (Jute and Gunnies) Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. th ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal20,82CWN864
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Salil K. Roy Chowdhury J., delivered on the 20th and 21st Dec., 1973 dismissing an application for setting aside an award. It is an award of the Tribunal o Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry being Award No. 248 made on the 18th March, 1952. The petitioner before the learned Trial Judge, who is now the appellant before us, made inter alia, the following prayers :'(a) That the said purported Contract No. B/713 dated 31st May 1951 and/or the Bought Note and Sold Note relating thereto and the arbitration agreement contained therein be declared null and void and/or the validity and/or the existence and/or the effect of the said purported contract and the arbitration agreement contained therein be determined by this Hon'ble Court; (b) That the purported reference and the said pretended Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry being purported Award No. 248 dated...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gasper Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR581(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. We are concerned with the following questions in this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's right of tenancy under the landlords constituted a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a transfer of the assessee's right of tenancy under the landlords within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the said Act ? (3) If the answer to question No. (2) is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,83,201 represented capital gains assessable under Section 45(1) of the said Act for the assessment year 1967-68 ?' 2. The assessment year is 1967-6...
Tag this Judgment!i.M. Thapar, Executor to the Estate of Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR797(Cal)
Sen, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, arises out of assessment to tax of income accruing to the Estate of late Karam Chand Thapar in the assessment year 1964-65, the relevant accounting year being the year ending on the 31st March, 1964. The facts found and/or admitted are, inter alia, as follows :The assessment was made in the name of 'Estate of late Lala Karam Chand Thapar, represented by executors and legal representatives, (1) Sri I.M. Thapar, (2) Sri B. M. Thapar, (3) Sri L.M. Thapar, (4) Sri M. M. Thapar and Others' under Section 143(3) of the said Act read with Section 168.2. Lala Karam Chand Thapar died on the 29th March, 1962, leaving a will dated the 20th June, 1961, under which all his assets and properties were equally divided between his four sons and his wife and two executors were appointed. Probate of this will had not been obtained and administration of the estate was also not completed during the relevant year.3. In an appeal preferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Ghosh and ors.. Vs. Smt. Subala Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ1005
ORDERA.N. Banerjee, J.1. This Rule is for quashing of a proceeding pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambag and also for setting aside the order dated 28-3-1977 passed by him.2. It appears that on 17-1-1977 the opposite party filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners, who are fourteen in number, alleging that after forming themselves into an unlawful assemly being armed with deadly weapons they trespassed into her house on 14-1-77 and after abusing her and her son, who was not present, and after assaulting her took away certain quantity of paddy worth about Rs. 250/-. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of such complaint and was of the view that since the offences complained of under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code which were triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he was adopting the procedure laid down under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Shahadara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Company Ltd. Vs. Union of I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal460
ORDERSabyasachi Mukherji, J. 1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of the Suit No. 214 of 1977. 2. The said suit was instituted on/or about 16th of April, 1977 by the Shahadara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Company Limited (in voluntary Liquidation). The basis of the claim of the said suit is that the plaintiff was operating a tramway under the Indian Tramways Act, 1886 and/or a light railway under the Indian Railways Act, 1890 between Shahadara (Delhi) Railway Station and Saharanpur. The length of the said system was about 92.5 miles equivalent to 148 kilometers. For operating the said system the plaintiff prepared and built extensive earth work on which the said tramway and/or railway tracks were based of which the average width was about 10 ft. stretching for the said 148 kilometers. The said earth work on which the tramway and/or railway tracks was placed was of a permanent character and the plaintiff had incurred huge expenses in the e...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Kohli and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal513
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The subject-matter of challenge in this application is the order dated the 15th Feb., 1978. By the said order the petitioner was communicated as follows:--'The representation made by you under your above letter has been considered and it has been decided to ban business dealings with you for a periodof 5 (five) years with immediate effect.'In order to appreciate the challenge to this order, it would be necessary to refer to certain facts. It appears that on or about the 6th June, 1977 the petitioner received a memorandum which was as follows :--'It has come to notice that M/s. H. S. Kohli, handling contractors, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, during the years 1969-70, indulged in the malpractice as detailed in the enclosed statement of charge. In the circumstances, the Government of India propose to ban business dealings for a period of five years by the Indian Railways and Production Units etc. with M/s. H. S. Kohli as also their allied/sister concerns, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.M. Press (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR885(Cal)
Sen, J. 1. This reference is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I, Calcutta. Under Section 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, the Tribunal has drawn up a case and referred the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no occasion to impose any additional super-tax under Section23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?'2. The facts found are, inter alia, that in the assessment year 1960-61, M. M. Press (P.) Ltd., the assessee, was assessed on a total income of Rs. 68,619 on which tax payable was Rs. 30,879. Distributable surplus in the hands of the assessee was, therefore, Rs. 37,740. The assessee declared dividend of Rs. 15,625 within the statutory period after the close of the relevant accounting year.3. The ITO held that the assessee not having declared dividend to the extent of Rs. 24,531, i.e., sixty-five per cent. of the distributable surplus, were liable to be proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Ghulam MohiuddIn Vs. the Official Assignee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal463
ORDERMonjula Bose, J.1. The claim in this suit is for respective declarations that the lease dated June 23, 1964, the agreement of tenancy dated May 1, 1964 and the tenancy referred to in para 20 (c) of the plaint are null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs. The admitted facts are inter alia that in Sept. 1962, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 alone with one Golam Rasul (since deceased) jointly purchased premises No. 2 Chingrihat'. a Lane, Calcutta at an auction sale bv the Official Assignee, the defendant No. 1, held in execution of a mortgage decree passed against the then owner one Khaja Shamsuddin. The plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 are the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Golam Rasul one of the joint purchasers. Subsequent to the said purchase certain facts came to light, namely that in a suit for dower being suit No. 1172 of 1958 filed by one Jamela Begum the defendant No. 2, the said Shamsuddin allowed an ex parte decree to be suffered against himself and...
Tag this Judgment!Surajmall Gouti Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR182(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This reference arises out of estate duty proceedings in respect of the estate of one Madan Chand Gouti, who died on the 18th March, 1966. The facts found and/or admitted are, inter alia, that during his lifetime the deceased was a partner in the firm of M/s. Chouthmull Joychandlal Gouti (hereinafter referred to as ' the firm') having 12.5% interest (1/8th share) therein. One of the assets of the said firm was a jute press named Gouti Jute Press consisting of five godowns held under a lease for 61 years. The business of the firm consisted mainly of letting out the said godowns from which substantial income was earned. The material clauses in the deed of partnership dated the 10th April, 1965, were, inter alia, as follows:'11. In case of death or retirement of any partner or of any minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership, the partnership business shall not stand dissolved but outgoing partner or legal representative of the deceased partner shall be entitl...
Tag this Judgment!Tide Water Oil Company (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT71(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. The petitioner Tide Water Oil Company (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said Company), is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and an existing Company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Clive Row, Calcutta. That apart, for the purpose of its business the said Company has a factory at 109, Foreshore Road, Howrah, which is also registered as a factory under the Factories Act. It has been alleged that in the said factory no manufacturing process is carried on and in fact the said Company in that factory carries on blending or processing only.2. It further appears that at the said factory of the said Company makes or manufactures lubricating oils by further processing of blended or compounded lubricating oils purchased from open market. These lubricating oils being excisable goods under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), it has been stat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »