Kolkata Court December 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lalit Mohan Mondal Vs. Profulla Kumar Mondal (Deceased Through His L. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal52,86CWN398
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for the grant of Letters of Administration, They alleged that on the 21st Nov. 1955, their father, Nagendra Nath Mondal, executed a will. On the 18th Dec, 1967. he expired. The executrix under the will was his wife, Aiswarjyamoyee Dasi. She instituted Original Suit No. 13 of 1968 for grant of a probate in her favour. But she was prevailed upon by the interested parties to withdraw that suit. The plaintiffs, who are three of his sons, are the beneficiaries under the will.2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. who are Nagen's sons, filed a written statement. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring it. Nagendra Nath Mondal did not execute any such will. It is not at all a genuine document. He had been suffering from illness from before the execution of the alleged will. There was no reason to deprive his two sons (contesting defendants) of his property. Moreover, Nagendra...
ThakuruddIn Ramjash, a Firm Vs. Sourendra Nath Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal133,86CWN230
B.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiff has alleged that on the basis of a deed of lease executed by the defendant and also by the plaintiff and his brother, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, as well on the 7th Sept., 1949, the disputed land was leased out to the defendant for 15 years expiring with the 31st Dec., 1964. The condition was that after the expiry of the period of the lease, the defendant would deliver vacant possession of the suit land after removing the structures standing on the landat his own cost, failing which the structures would belong to the lessors. Then on the 16th Aug., 1962, a partition was effected between the plaintiff and his brother, Rabindra Nath Mukherjee, and the disputed property was exclusively allotted to his share. Though the defendant's tenancy was determined by efflux of time on the expiry of 31st Dec., 1964, he did not vacate the property. Though he was not entitled to any notice, still a notice to quit was served on the defendant, The defendant did not vacate. He...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Braithwaite, Burn and Jessop Constructi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR768(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. In this case, M/s. Braithwaite, Burn and Jessop Constructions Co. Ltd. is the assessee and the assessment year concerned is 1967-68. 2. The Surtax Officer did not treat a sum of Rs. 23,27,500, shown as reserve for taxation in the balance-sheet of the company, as a reserve in the computation of the capital base for the purpose of surtax assessment for the assessment year 1967-68. He treated the amount as a provision.3. On appeal, the AAC, following the Tribunal's decision in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1965-66, treated this amount as a reserve eligible for inclusion in the capital base for surtax purposes. The AAC relied on the finding of the Tribunal that the provision for taxation was separately made by the assessee and that the reserve for taxation was in the nature of general reserve which had no relation with any accrued liability and, therefore, the character of the said reserve was that of a reserve and not of a provision. 4. On furth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›