Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal50
B.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiffs have alleged that the land of the Schedule B to the plaint forms part of the land of the Schedule A. On the 8th Dec., 1933, one Modal Singh purchased the property of Schedule A from one Mohabir Prosad Mistri by a registered kobala and thereafter he was in peaceful possession of the same. By a registered Sale Deed dated 10-1-1962 the plaintiff purchased that property from Modal Singh. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 have been carrying on business under the name and style of Messrs. Roy & Co. (Defendant No. 1). In 1958-59 the defendants illegally trespassed into the small 'Tin Chhapra' of Modal Singh. They possessed that shed as a godown for sometime. Thereafter they constructed a new C.I.T. sheet structure. The suit was filed for recovery of khas possession of the disputed land on declaration of plaintiffs' title thereto.2. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed a written statement alleging inter alia that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no title and p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal53,83CWN41
B.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that he was the sole mutawalli of the wakf estate in question and the defendants were not validly appointed mutwallis. The defence was that the suit was not maintainable, because Wakf Commissioner was not made a party. The learned Munsif relied on the decision in 48 Cal WN 157 : (AIR 1944 Cal 206) and repelled that contention that the notice under Section 70 of the Wakf Act was necessary. The suit was decreed in part against defendant No. 3 and dismissed against the rest. An appeal was taken out. A cross-objection was filed. The learned Subordinate Judge stated that the appellant could not be the sole mutwalli and her brother, that is, respondent No. 2, was also a mutwalli. So the appeal and the cross-objection were dismissed. Hence this appeal.2. In this Court the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant referred to the decision of Mr. Justice P. B. Mukherji in : AIR1966Cal68 and stated that the notice un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal79
ORDERMonjula Bose, J.1. This suit filed at the instance of a transferee purchaser of an undivided half share in premises No. 23, Krishna Ram Bose Street, Calcutta is for possession and alternatively for partition of the suit premises. In the plaint it is inter alia alleged that by a conveyance dated Aug. 1, 1963, the plaintiff purchased the half share of one Narayan Krishna Ghosh in the suit premises. It is alleged that the said Narayan Krishna Ghose, delivered possession of the portion in his occupation to the plaintiff and the plaintiff let out the same to the said Narayan Krishna Ghose at a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. Inasmuch as the said Narayan Krishna Ghose failed and neglected to pay rent, a suit was caused to be instituted against him and the plaintiff recovered possession from him in execution of the decree for possession in his favour. It is alleged that thereafter the defendants caused obstruction and interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the property and in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]121ITR840(Cal)
Bimal Chandra Basak, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is at the instance of the revenue. The question referred to is as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the order of penalty passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal was right in holding that the factual foundation for the levy of penalty was not established and that the levy of penalty was, therefore, wrong?' 2. The facts admitted and/or found by the Tribunal are as follows. Theassessment year under consideration is 1959-60. The relevant previousyear ended on the March 31, 1959. The assessee is a partnership firmcarrying on business in jute and cloth, with its head office at No. 4,Dayehatta Street, and branches in Dhubri and Agartalla. In its books atthe head office the assessee had shown receipt of commission for sale of juteon account of Tilokchand Jain of Alipurduar and San...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal112,82CWN1126
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This Rule is at the instance of the plaintiff, the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., and it is directed against order No. 116, dated July 27, 1974 of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore. By the said order, it has been held by the learned Subordinate Judge that the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 have been wrongly added as parties to the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge has directed the plaintiff bank to elect as to which of the defendants Nos. 1 to 8 it would proceed against. 2. The suit out of which this Rule arises is one for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 80,967.78 advanced by the plaintiff bank to the defendant No. 1, a company, of which the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the Directors. The defendant No. 6 assigned to the plaintiff certain direct bills drawn by the defendant No. 6 on the defendants Nos. 7 and 8, in liquidation of the liabilities of the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. The defendant No. 5 is the surety and he executed a letter of guarantee in favour of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal172,82CWN1130
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it arises out of a suit for recovery of maintenance. The only point that is involved in this appeal is whether a Hindu father-in-law governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, is under a legal obligation to maintain his destitute widowed daughter-in-law.2. The respondent Sm. Puspa Rani Pramanik, who was the plaintiff, is the widowed daughter-in-law of the appellant, Kanai Lal Pramanik, The respondent was married to the appellant's son Satyanarayan Pramanik in Baisakh 1335 B. S. Unfortunately, her husband died in the month of Agrahayan 1357 B. S. without leaving any issue, Both the respondent and her husband were minors at the time of their marriage. It has been found by the trial court that the respondent who has been living in her father's house has no source of income by which she can maintain herself. Her father is also a poor man. The appellant, her father-in-law, has however, considerable quantities of land. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1982]136ITR41(Cal)
1. This reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, at the instance of M/s. Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd., Calcutta, the assesses.relates to the assessment year 1947-48, for which the relevant previous year ended on the 30th June, 1946. The facts found by and/or admitted before the Tribunal are shortly as follows :2. The assessee carried on business as a dealer in jute. In the course of the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1948-49, the ITO, on scrutiny of the accounts of the subsequent year, found diverse cash credit entries on diverse dates aggregating to Rs. 1,40,000 in the names of several persons who were petty employees of the assessee and treated the same as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. There were appeals by the assessee and ultimately the Tribunal directed the ITO to exclude the said amounts from assessment for the said assessment year and to assess the same, according to law, in the earlier assessment year 1947-4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]120ITR872(Cal)
Sen, J.1. This reference under the I.T. Act, 1961, relates to the assessments of M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd. in assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the previous years ending on the 31st March of 1960 and 1961. The assessee had purchased a ship named APJ Ambar in the assessment year 1960-61 and another ship named APJ Usha in the assessment year 1961-62. In the assessments for the said assessment years, the assessee had claimed and had been allowed development rebate in respect of the said two ships amounting, respectively, to Rs. 5,10,830 and Rs. 5,90,653.2. The assessee preferred appeals from the said assessments. The main contention in the appeals was that the ITO had wrongly added to the total income of the assessee various amounts shown as hundi loans as income from undisclosed sources. An additional ground, raised at the hearing of the appeal, was that the amount shown in the account of the assessee as estimated value of subsidies, in fact, had not been received by the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]117ITR838(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, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record in its' order dated 25th August, 1973, which could be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The statement of the case relates to the assessment year 1965-66. The assessee is an individual. He was the owner of a business and sold it to a company in the relevant previous year. He also sold the goodwill of the said business to that company for Rs. 60,000. The ITO brought Rs. 60,000 to tax under the head 'capital gains'. 3. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by both the appellate authorities. The assessee then made an application before the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, without asking for setting aside of the appellate order of the Tribunal.4. It may be now noted here ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]116ITR758(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, arises from the income-tax assessment of M/s. P. C. Sharma & Sons, the assessee, in the assessment year 1964-65, the previous accounting year having ended on the 31st March, 1964. At such assessment a cash credit of Rs. 35,000 was found in the name of one Ganeshilal Sharma in the books of the assessee. The ITO rejected the assessee's contention that it was a genuine loan and added back the said sum as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The AAC and the Tribunal both confirmed the order of the ITO. 2. The assessee made an application under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, asking that the following questions be referred to this court: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was in accordance with law 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the loan of Rs. 35,000 by Sri G.L. Sharma, who confirmed the loan and exp...
Tag this Judgment!