Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 81CWN876,[1978]112ITR47(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned trial judge discharging the rule nisi obtained by the appellant on his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant carries on his business as a Government contractor, and he is an assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1961. He filed his return for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 within the period prescribed therefor. He was served with a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on May 25, 1971, whereby he was called upon by the Income-tax Officer to appear and produce the relevant evidence in support of the returns filed by him. The date of hearing of the assessment proceedings was fixed on June 17, 1971, which was subsequently adjourned to September 22, 1971. On that date, the appellant was heard by the Income-tax Officer. He produced before the Income-tax Officer the payment certificate in original as given to him by the Government, the bank pass book and oth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal413,81CWN885
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This isan appeal from the judgment and order of P. B. Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) dated May 24, 27 and 28, 1968 in an appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to an the said Act). By that judgment the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated March 26, 1968 rejecting the application for registration of a trade mark filed by the Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. in Part A of the Register or alternatively in Part B of the Register, was affirmed. The trade mark for registration is a label, used as wrapper of packets of cigarettes bearing the device of snow clad hills in outline with the word 'Simla' written prominently in various panels of the label with small inscription that the content is 'a product' of the applicant company. The application had been made for registration of the trade mark in class 34 in respect of manufactured tobacco. In course of hearing of this appeal, an application has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal312
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J. 1. This suit w,as filed by Messrs. Daga Films, the plaintiff herein, against Messrs. Lotus Production and Mr. D. N. Mehta for (a) declaration that the document dated 7th April 1970 is void and/or voidable; (b) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the said document dated April 7, 1970 by realising any further sum from the plaintiff in respect of the film 'Juari'; (c) decree for Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of damages and (d) injunction, Receiver cost and other consequential reliefs.2. The defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit nor filed any written statement The defendant No. 2 Mr. D. N. Mehta filed a written statement and also contested the suit. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff carried on business in partnership as distributor of cinematographic films and the defendant No. 1 carried on business of motion pictures production at Ranjit Studio, Dadar, Bombay. The defendant No. 1 as such producer was producing a motion picture in H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1821
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1.In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges a notice dated the 25th September, 1975, issued to the petitioner under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.2. The petitioner is ;a director of the Hindusthan Motors Limited. He is also a Solicitor of this Court. By the said notice the petitioner was required to show cause why adjudication proceedings contemplated by Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Section 23-D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947) should not be held against the petitioner for the alleged contravention of Section 4(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, by the Hindusthan Motors Ltd. Show cause notices were also issued to the said company and other directors and some officers of the said company on the said alleged grounds. The said notice alleged that the said company had entered into a contract with the United Commercial Bank Limited for the purchase of forward ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1978)IILLJ90Cal
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant, Indian Airlines Corporation and it arises out of a suit for declaration and recovery of money.2. The case of the plaintiff was that he was at first appointed a Radio Officer by the Indian National Airways with effect from October, 1946. He was confirmed in the said post with effect from April 10, 1947. The defendant-Indian Airlines Corporation was formed in the year 1953 under the Air Corporations Act, 1953. The undertakings of all the existing air companies vested in the defendant-Corporation and the services of all employees working in the said undertaking including the services of the plaintiff were taken over by the defendant-Corporation. The plaintiff was promoted to the post of Senior Radio Officer by the defendant-Corporation with effect from October 1, 1960. Before the introduction of the Pilot Operated Long Range R/T which had inevitable consequence on the Radio Officers employed under the defendant-Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1978Cal321
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent was a tenant at 5, J. C. Bose Road, P. S. Golabari. According to the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court on 27th Aug. 1959, he and the defendant-appellant entered into a partnership agreement. The plaintiff was given 2 annas share of the fish business which was to be carried on under the name and style of M/s. M. K. Rahaman & Company in a portion of the plaintiff's rented room at 5, J. C. Bose Road. The Lower Appellate Court has found that the said partnership agreement was acted upon and from 11th Sept. 1959 the defendant had carried on fish business in the said room. In May, 1960 the defendant obtained a direct tenancy of the room in question from the landlord. The defendant did not pay any money to the plaintiff for his share of the profit of the said partnership business.2. The plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction brought a suit to restrain the defendant and his men from entering into the shop-room at 5, J. C. Bose ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]113ITR37(Cal)
Deb, J.1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relates to the assessment year 1957-58 for which the relevant previous year ended on the 31st December, 1956,2. The assessce is an insurance company. On January 19, 1956, the management of its life insurance business vested in the Central Government under the provisions of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Ordinance '). From the 19th January, 1956, to 31st August, 1956, a Custodian was in the management, of the said life insurance business under the provisions of the Ordinance and the corresponding section of the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956 (hereinafter stated as ' the Act '). The assessee was paid under Section 7 of the Act a compensation of Rs. 81,069 for the deprivation of the management of the said life insurance business for the aforesaid period when the Custodian was in the management of the said business. Thereafter, the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1978Cal88,82CWN377
ORDERSudhamay Basu, J.1. This Rule has been obtained to quash the order of revocation, dated the 16th July, 1973, another notice also dated the 16th of July, 1973 requiring the Vishnupur Electric Supply and Industrial Development Company limited to sell the undertaking to the West Bengal State Electricity Board and deliver the same to the Board on the 10th of August, 1973, a letter dated the 25th of July, 1973 requiring the said Company to make inventory of the assets and to do diverse other acts for the purpose of handing over the undertaking and a further notification, dated the 27th of May, 1971 purporting to alter the option of purchase.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 on Dec. 22, 1939 with the objects inter alia of supplying electrical energy in the town of Vishnupur in the District of Bankura and its suburbs. The State Government by a Notification No. 2552-MP, dated Nov. 6, 1950, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]120ITR763(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J.1. This reference arises out of the two orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal both dated 9th March, 1971 and a consolidated statement of case has been submitted by the Tribunal pursuant to the order of the court. Relevant facts of this reference appearing from the said statement of case may briefly be stated :The assessee is a registered firm. Its business is to execute contracts for construction of roads, buildings and bridges under various Government departments. The assessment year involved in this reference is 1966-67, the corresponding financial year being 1965-66. The assessee disclosed a net profit of 7.2 per cent. on the receipts of Rs. 6,35,271 in the contract work. The assessee did not maintain any stock register showing the materials purchased and consumed in the process of construction work and the stock left. The expenses for construction were not properly vouched. The cash book was not properly maintained. Because of these defects the ITO did not accept...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1978(2)ELT229(Cal)
A.K. Mookerji J.1. Common questions of law are involved in these two Rules. The facts and circumstances of these cases are also similar. Accordingly these two Rules are heard together and a common judgment shall govern these two cases. 2. C.R. No. 6628(W) of 1972 is directed against the orders dated March 15, 1972 and March 27, 1972 determining the assessable value of the glass products manufactured by the petitioner and the assessment of excise duty for the months of April, 1971 to August 1971 and demands totalling Rs. 46,227.92 on account of differential duty between the assessable value as approved by the impugned orders of the Respondent No. 1 and the assessable value as declared by the petitioner in its price list. 3. C.R. 1386(W) of 1974 is directed against the impugned orders determining the assessable value and order of assessment and demands on the basis thereof for the periods September, 1971 to September, 1973. In this Rule the petitioner further prays for a refund of Rs. 47...
Tag this Judgment!