Kolkata Court April 1981 Judgments
Trambaklal Dayalal Kothari Vs. L.K. Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal217
ORDERManashnath Roy, J. 1. In this Rule, which was obtained with a corresponding interim order On 21st June, 1974, the petitioner, Trambaklal Dayalal Kothari, has impeached certain orders made by the Probate Deputy Collector, being Respondent No, 1, and the particulars whereof would be available from the facts stated hereinafter. 2. One Umedlal Dayalal Kothari also known as Umedlal D. Kothari died at premises No. 18, Priya Nath Mullick Road, Bhowanipur at Calcutta on 19th June, 1963 and the petitioner in this Rule applied for probate of the last Will and testament of the said deceased in this Court and it has been stated that such probate was granted by this Court in its Original Side. Such probate order was made on 13th Aug. 1964. It was the case of the petitioner that at the time of making the application for the grant of probate as mentioned above, on or about 9th Sept. 1973, the petitioner, who incidentally was a brother of the deceased along with one Himatlal Umedlal Kothari, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Chandra Ghose Vs. Roopraj S. Bhansally
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1002
N.C. Mukherji, J.1. These two applications have been filed under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Criminal Revision 1408 of 1980 is for quashing proceeding being C. Case No. 2050 of 1980 under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said proceeding by-order dated 5-7-1980 the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore issued process against the petitioner under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Criminal Revision 1501 of 1980 is for quashing a proceeding being C. Case No. 750 under Sections 341 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. In this proceeding, the learned Magistrate after receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed the complainant's prayer for Judicial enquiry and fixed 27-11-1980 for further evidence.3. We shall first take up Criminal Revision 1408 of 1980. The proceeding, namely, C. Case No. 2050 of 1980 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Bholanath Khasnabis Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal316
ORDERT.K. Basu, J. 1. The petitioners in the present Rule are citizens of India and are all working under the Judgeship of the District Hooghly. They are all holders of L.L.B. Degree from Calcutta University. 2. On or about the 21st Oct., 1974 the Finance Department of the Government of West Bengal issued a Memorandum which is Annexure 'A' to the petition. The relevant portion of the Memorandum is set out here-in below :-- 'In order to attract men of quality and also for removing frustration, the benefit of threeincrements shall be given to those who acquired specilised knowledge of a technical nature by obtaining post-graduate Diploma of recognised Universitias and six incremental benefits for those who obtained post-graduate Degrees of recognised Universities subject to the condition that these incremental benefits shall be available once in their career who have not got it at the time of entry, may get it as soon as those post-graduate qualifications are obtained. Provided that (a) ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sampatrai Bhutoria and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR868(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This application for reference under Section 27(1) of theW.T. Act, 1957, is at the instance of the CWT, West Bengal-III, Calcutta.2. The assessee is an HUF. The assessment years are 1960-61 to 1968-69 and the relevant valuation dates are the last day of 2016 R.N. to 2024 R.N. respectively.3. The original assessments for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1962-63 were completed on July 18, 1973, which, however, were set aside by the AAC. The karta of the assessee had received certain properties under the will dated May 4, 1958, of his father, Jaskaran Bhutoria, who died on February 12, 1960.4. The assessee did not show the said properties in its wealth-tax returns for the years under reference as it was of the view that the said properties belonged to its karta in his individual capacity. The ITO, while completing the assessment under the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1965-66, treated the said properties as that of the assessee. The ITO, reading the ter...
Tag this Judgment!Jogesh Chandra Bera and ors. Vs. Sri Iswar Braja Raj Jew Thakur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal259,85CWN849
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This is a revision application at the instance of some of the defendants in a proceeding arising out of an application for leave to sue as indigent person being Judicial Misc. Case No. 31/77 of the 1st Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Midnapore. The leave prayed for was granted by the impugned order dated July 5, 1980.2. The applicant for the leave was Sri Braja Raj Jew Thakur represented by the next friend Smt. Mokshoda Adhikari. It is stated in the application that the landed property described in the plaint schedule were the subject-matter of an Arpannama executed by late Jagannath Adhikary on August 18, 1975. In terms of the Arpannama Haripada Adhikary son of Jagannath Adhikary is the shcbait of the deity. The properties in ka and kha schedules are debultar properties and not subject to alienation. It is alleged in the plaint accompanying the application for leave to sue as an indigent person that Haripada who figures as defendant No. 13 in the su...
Tag this Judgment!Jaganath Mondal Vs. Tarak Ch. Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal224,85CWN862
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J. 1. The judgment debtor filed an application praying for cancellation of the auction sale regarding the disputed property held on the 5th December, 1977. His allegation was that a preliminary decree for partition was passed and then an appeal filed. This Court issued a Rule staying the further proceedings of the preliminary decree. An interim order was later made absolute- Meanwhile, the decree holder opposite party filed execution and auction purchased the property. The prayer is for cancelling that sale on the ground that the sale held in the case in the face of stay o further proceedings of the preliminary decree, was void and was liable to be set aside.2. The decree holder opposite party filed an objection.3. The learned Munsif rejected the application. Hence this revisional application.4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that law in this respect is well-settled after the Supreme Court decision of Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji reported in : [1967]...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reliable Trading Agency
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR505(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Sections 271(4A) and 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act,1961, read with the Explanation thereto, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty.'2. The question relates to the assessment year 1964-65. It is not disputed,that the case would be governed by the Explanation to Section 271(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961, which was introduced with effect from the 1st April, 1964. Thecase would also be governed by the deletion of the expression 'deliberately' before the expression 'furnished inaccurate particulars' in Clause (c)of Section 271(1) of the Act. In the course of proceedings for the relevant assessment year it is stated that the ITO noticed a number of cash depositaccounts. Some of those cash deposit accounts were said to be on account ofloans tak...
Tag this Judgment!Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: [1982]133ITR407(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 2(9) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was a company liable to be assessed to tax on its profits under the provisions of the said Act?'2. The assessee is a non-resident shipping company incorporated in Sweden. For the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the ITO had assessed the assessee-company on its profits under the Surtax Act. In appeals before the AAC, the validity of the assessments was challenged on the only ground that the provisions of the Surtax Act, 1964, had no application to non-resident companies, of which the assessee-company was one. The AAC disposed of both the appeals by his consolidated order. He held that the assessee-company was a company within the meaning...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ganges Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1981
Reported in: [1982]133ITR404(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no part of the amount credited to the development rebate reserve account could be said to have been utilised by the assessee for distribution by way of dividend or profit ?'2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1962-63. The facts found by the ITO were as follows :3. The assessee had been allowed development rebate for this assessment year amounting to Rs. 17,07,973 for which it had also created the necessary reserve. However, on March 31, 1963, the assessee transferred a sumof Rs. 6,01,000 from the development rebate reserve to its general reserve and, thereafter, it transferred a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 from the general reserve to the profit and loss appropriation account for the declaration of dividends. The ITO took the transfer of R...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Prosad Paul Chowdhury Vs. Madhabi Paul Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal474
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. On April, 1976 the appellant husband had filed a petition in the Court of the learned District Judge, Alipore under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the respondent wife had treated him with cruelty and that she had deserted him. After the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 was enacted, the appellant husband applied in the trial court for amendment of his petition, inter alia, by substituting in place of the prayer for judicial separation a prayer for decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The trial court had allowed the said prayer for amendment. The respondent wife had contested the said suit, inter alia, denying the allegations of cruelty and desertion made by her husband.2. The learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore dismissed the said suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff husband has filed the present appeal.3. On 10th April, 1981 the ap...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »