Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-27-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Cal266,1968CriLJ736
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule must be made absolute. The present revisionsal application is for quashing, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, a criminal case being C. R. Case No. 638 of 1966, pending in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate at Port Blair. Andaman and Nicobar Islands under Section 500 I. P C.2. The facts leading on to the present revisional application may be put in a short compass. On the 14th May 1965 in the issue of the 'Darpan' a Bengali weekly published In Calcutta, an editorial article was published containing an alleged defamatory imputation against the complainant firm, viz., R. Akoji Jadwet and Company This weekly used to be printed at a press owned by a Limited company, viz., the Metropolitan Printing and Publishing House(P) Ltd. and at the relevant time, the present petitioner, Sunilakhya Chowdhury, was one of the Directors of the Company. The accused petitioner was neither the maker, that is the author nor the printer nor the publisher ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-25-1967
Reported in : AIR1967Cal532
1. Several questions of law have to be answered on this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is the owner of certain agricultural lands. There was no assessment proceeding against him under the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act. 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') prior to 1949. In 1919-51 there were such proceedings bill the assessment was nil upon the finding that his income fell below the taxable amount Subsequently, on 18-11-1958 the Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued notices under Section 38(1) of the Act asking the petitioner to submit returns for the years 1954-57 It is against the notice in respect of the year 1956-57, which is at Ann. A to the petition, that the present petition has been brought Before proceeding further, it would be useful to reproduce the text of this notice.'Whereas in consequence of definite information which has come into my possession I have discovered that your total agricultural income from Rent Revenue and Agri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-28-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Cal49
Amaresh Roy, J.1. This second appeal is by the tenant - defendant and arises out of a suit for ejectment from the premises in which the defendant is a tenant. Eviction was prayed for by the plaintiffs on the ground of reasonable requirement both for their own use and occupation and also for purposes of building and rebuilding including substantial additions and alterations under Section 13(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The suit was instituted by the two plaintiffs, the two brothers, who are the owners of the premises. The sole defendant contested the suit not only on the merits but also by contending that the notice terminating the tenancy had not been properly served. Both the courts have held in favour of the plaintiffs and a decree for eviction has been passed against the defendant. Against the judgment and decree passed in the appellate court the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.2. The suit premises No. 28/10C Nakuleswar Bhattacharjee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-28-1967
Reported in : [1967]20STC345(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. In this appeal from a judgment of Sinha, J., as he then was, the principal point involved is the meaning of inter-State trade or commerce. The appellant is a manufacturer and supplier of aluminium utensils. It has its registered office in Calcutta. It submitted tenders for the supply of aluminium utensils to the Government of India in its Directorate of Supplies and Disposals required for military purposes. The tenders were made to the Director of Supplies and Disposals, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply at 6, Esplanade East, Calcutta. The schedule to the acceptance of tender contained, inter alia, the following particulars :-1. Name and address of the Messrs Jeewanlal (1929) Limit-contractor ... ed, 31, Netaji Subhas Road,Calcutta.3. Name of indentor ... C. 0. D. Kanpur.7. Conditions of contract as W.S.B. 133 as amended to date.contained in Form No. ...8. The indenting department Government/Central/Military/is ... Commercial.10. Place of delivery ... Free...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-03-1967
Reported in : [1967]64ITR568(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act has been made in circumstances here in after stated.It is well-known that, in the year 1947, the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act was passed 'for the purpose of ascertaining whether the actual incidence of taxation of income is and has been in recent years in accordance with the provisions of law, and the extent to which the existing law and procedure for the assessment and recovery of such taxation is adequate to prevent the evasion there of, to make provision for an investigation to be made into such matters.' Section 5 (1) of the Act invested the Central Government with power to refer particular cases or points in a case to the commission for investigation and report if the Central Government was of the opinion that there had been substantial evasion of Income-tax payment in such cases. Similarly if the course of an investigation under section 5 (1), the commission had reasons to believe ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-21-1967
Reported in : [1967]19STC447(Cal)
D. Basu, J.1. This Rule is directed against the orders at annexures 'G' and 'H' to the petition, dated 13th July, 1962, and 31st January, 1963, respectively.2. The petitioner-firm carries on the business of manufacturing patent and proprietary medicines, toilet goods etc. for sale and is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and holds the Registration Certificate No. BH/50 which was issued to it on 20th September, 1941 (annexure 'A'). In this certificate, its business is described as 'manufacturing wholesale and retail', and as to exemption from sales tax, it is stated:Sales of the following goods to this dealer will be free of tax-(a) For purposes of manufacture:Chemicals, roots, herbs, paper, ink and(1) any other materials;(2) plant, machinery, spare Certified by the purchasing dealer parts, accessories and to be required for use in any consumable stores; process in the manufacture of(3) building or plumbing finished...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-06-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Cal1,71CWN719
Sinha, C.J. 1. This matter and number of other matters, namely -- C.R. 472 (W) of 1962. C.R 807(W) to 819(W) of 1963, C.R. 939 (W) of 1963, C.R. 189(W) to 194(W) of 1964, C. R. 207(W) and 208(W) of 1964, C. R. 331(W) of 1964. C. R. 610(W) of 1964, C. R. liai(W) of 1964. C. R. 1213(W) of 1964. and C. R 994(W) of 1964, have been referred to this Special Bench for disposal, as all of them involve a matter of great public importance, pamely the vires of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1958 (Central Act 32 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). There has been a common argument in all these cases and the point of law being tht same, they will all be governed by the decision herein Distinctive features of each case will be considered separately. The facts in this case are briefly as follows : The petitioner No. 1. Standard Literature Company Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-20-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Cal220,1968CriLJ604,71CWN508
Bijayesh Mukherjee, J. 1. This is a case laid before me under Section 439, Sub-section (1), read with Section 429, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 5 of 1898, with the divided opinions of Brothers Amaresh Roy and Alak Gupta, on the legality of steps taken to secure the extradition of one Jugal Kishore More from Hong Kong to India, and in particular to the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta.2. To begin from the very beginning of the matter now at issue, during the pendency, at the investigation stage, of Taltola police-station case No. 237 dated May 4, 1962, under Sections 120B/420/467/471 of the Penal Code against Suprokash Mukherjeeand others, before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, a Sub-Inspector of Police of the detective department, one Benoy Kr. Mukherjee, drew up a petition on May 11, 1965, to the address of the same Magistrate, stating inter alia: Jugal Kishore More and others 'were parties to a criminal conspiracy in Calcutta between May 1961 and De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-06-1967
Reported in : [1967]66ITR179(Cal)
BANERJEE J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act.The assessment year involved is the year 1954-55, corresponding to the financial year 1953-54, which is the accounting year.The assessee, K. K. Roy, is an individual. He is an aeronautical engineer. In December, 1945, he was appointed as the manager of Airways (India) Ltd., to look after the business of the company relating to all matters other than finance and general policy. In 1947, he was appointed as the managing director of the company. While he was acting as the managing director, there was passed the Air Corporations Act (XXVII of 1953) on May 28, 1953. The object of the Act was to nationalise transportation by air and for that purpose 'to provide for the establishment of air corporations, to facilitate the acquisition by the air corporations of undertakings belonging to certain existing air companies and generally to make further and better provisions for the operation of air transport services'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-07-1967
Reported in : AIR1968Cal69
ORDERS.P. Mitra, J.1. This is an election petition in respect of the Dubrajpur Constituency in the District of Birbhum. The petitioner was a candidate in this constituency in the last General Election and had lost to the respondent No. 1 by a margin of 290 votes. The Returning Officer declared the result of the election on the 23rd February 1967. The petitioner wanted to present his election petition on the 17th April, 1967. There were doubts in my mind as to whether the petitioner came to this Court within time. The petitioner's Counsel then submitted to me that he did not want to take the risk; and would make an application for condonation of the delay, if any, in presenting the petition. Accordingly, an application for condonation, if necessary, has beep made.2. For the last two days I have heard arguments of the petitioner's counsel, the Advocate General (who is appearing for the District Election Officer and the Returning Officer, the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 herein) and counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!