Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1956Cal388,1956CriLJ994
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. The facts of this case make a most unpleasant impression and had it not been for a very substantial question of law which is obviously implied, we would not have entertained an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at all. There is however a point of a fundamental character which appears to us to require further consideration.2. The facts are as follows : There was a case under Section 304 read with Section 324, Penal Code, pending before the Sessions Judge of Burdwan in which two persons, named Istipada Ghosh and Gopiraman Ghosh, were among the accused. Their interests were being looked after by a person called Bhajaharl Mandal, who is the petitioner before us. The prosecution case is that Bhajahari did not confine his activities to supervising the progress of the case in an open and normal way, but also formed the idea of corrupting the jurors and winning over a majority of them by payment of illegal gratification. He was said to have approached o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN146
D. K. Seth, J.Appellants' contention:1. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel for the appellants, had challenged this judgment of affirmance in this second appeal, deciding the maintainability of the suit on the question of forum, on the ground that Order 23 Rule 3 proviso read with the explanation and Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) would not stand in the way of the maintainability of a suit by persons who were not parties to the suit since compromised when the scope of challenge under Rule 3 proviso read with explanation and Order 43 Rule 1(a)(ii) or within the scope of Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 47 CPC, had elapsed. The suit would not be barred by reason of the specific provision in the Contract Act relating to void and voidable contracts where fraud was alleged in such a circumstances. He had led us through various provisions of CPC as well as the Contract Act and the decisions of this Court in Gosto Behari Pramanik v. Malati Sen, : AIR1985Cal379 and S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]111ITR825(Cal)
Sen, J. 1. This reference arises out of the assessment of M/s. Braith-waite & Co. (India) Ltd., a public limited company, within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, for the assessment year 1965-66. The facts found as appearing from the statement of the case and the annexures thereto are as follows :On the 2nd May, 1964, the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, received the assent of the President and came into force while the corresponding earlier Act, namely, the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, ceased to be in operation. On the 15th May, 1964, the recommendations of the directors for the ensuing annual general meeting of the assessee was finalised. The statement of the chairman of the assessee to the members was recorded as follows: 'The profit for the year after providing Rs. 14,19,333 for depreciation and transferring Rs. 7,03,186 to development rebate reserve, amounted to Rs. 1,24,47,705 which shows an increase of approximately Rs. 18 lakhs over the previous year. This result is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 84CWN83,[1980]121ITR241(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment which Mr. Justice B. C. Mitra had delivered on the 14th March, 1966, on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate writs for cancelling, rescinding, withdrawing and commanding the revenue authorities concerned to forbear from giving effect to certain notices dated February 20, I960, issued under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922. 2. The respondents are the legal representatives of one Md. Safiulla who died on March 23, 1953. The deceased owned several houses and other properties at Tinsukia in Assam and was assessed under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, at Dibrugarh. 3. On December 24, 1954, the ITO, Dibrugarh, issued several notices under Section 34(1A) of the Act on some of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased on the ground that there was reason to believe that incomes for the years 1940-41 to 1947-48 had escaped assessment. The persons who were served with these notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1971]81ITR207(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, Actg. C.J. 1. These are two income-tax references. One is Income-tax Reference No. 73 of 1964. The other is the Income-tax Reference No. 149 of 1964. They relate to the same parties. They raise common questions of fact and law. The Tribunal on its own referred one question under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, in the following terms :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in placing the burden of proof upon the department and excluding the income from Pakistan agricultural properties from the assessee's income ?'2. Thereafter, upon an order by this court, the Tribunal was directed to refer the following three other questions to this court under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act:' (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, had no application in the present case? (b) If the answer to question No. 1 (i.e., (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1971]80ITR637(Cal)
K.L. Roy, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a short but an important question of interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act which is not entirely free from doubt, The petitioner is the Bharat Agencies Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, which was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 by the respondent No, 1 on dates which are not apparent either from the orders themselves or from the petition. By notices dated the 22nd March, 1962, and 24th March, 1963, respectively, the respondent No. 1 intimated to the petitioner his intention of applying the provisions of Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect, inter alia, of the aforesaid two assessment years as the company had not declared 100% of its distributable surplus in terms of the aforesaid section within 12 months from the end of the respective previous years. Two orders, both dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 78CWN824,[1975]98ITR397(Cal)
Anil Kumar Sen, J.1. An order of assessment dated February 1, 1970, made by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, SSC-I/Cal , under Section 143(3)/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the consequent demand dated March 12, 1970, issued under Section 156 thereof are the subject-matter of challenge along with an order dated July 20, 1971, passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act against the said order of assessment. The facts are not in dispute and may briefly be set out as hereunder.2. Petitioner filed his return of income in respect of the assessment year 1963-64 on June 27, 1963. In this return he showed his total income to be Rs. 24,396, the only source of his income being said to be the share of profit received by him from Messrs. India Trading Corporation, a partnership firm of which the petitioner was a partner. On August 3, 1963, the Income-tax Officer made a provisional assessment under Section 141 of the Act and issued a demand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1995CriLJ115
ORDERNisith Kumar Batbyal, J. 1. Twenty-one Criminal Revisional Application involving common question of law have been taken up together for orders here.1A. In Criming Revision No. 434, of 1994 (Baidyanath Bose and Ors. v. State), the petitioner No. 1 is the Branch Manager of Hooghly District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Haripal Branch. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are Cultivators. Other petitioners are doing various works. On 8-4-1983 the Chief Accountant of Hooghly District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. lodged a complaint at Chinsurah P. S. to the effect that the petitioner No. 2 along with the other petitioners committed cheating in respect of a huge sum of money by way of criminal conspiracy and forgery of documents. Accordingly, Chinsurah P. S. Case No. 4, dated 8-4-83 was started under Sections 468/420/120B of the IPC The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court and some of them surrendered before the Ld. SDJM of 17-6-83 and the rest on 25-6-83. The final repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2002)3CALLT100(HC),2002(3)CHN87
P.K. Biswas, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of one Anup Kumar Roy, petitioner herein seeking to quash the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 327 of 1981 now pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta and which arose out of Section 'A' (Shyampukur P.S.) case No. 327 dated 29.9.81 under Sections 304/314/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the present revisional application are as under :-The present petitioner was arraigned as an accused in connection with aforesaid case for commission of an offence punishable under Sections 304/314/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code allegedly committed by him in collusion with others.3. In the aforesaid case, it was, inter alia, alleged that on 28.9.81 at about 7 P.M. Smt. Parul Rani Halder, aged about 25 years, widow of late Nirmal Chandra Halder, being conceived was admitted at Green Ways Nursing Home situated at 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3090
ORDERSatya Brata Sinha, J.1. The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus may be issued commanding the Respondents or Respondent/Respondents concerned to quash and/or set aside the purported Criminal Proceeding being G.R. No. 315/84 (T.R. No. 210/87) under Section 419 of IPC pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M. at Barasat, North 24-Parganas and grant full and/or final registration in favour of the petitioner as a Medical Practitioner on the basis of his application for final registration which is being withheld by the West Bengal Medical Council and/or forbear from taking any step or further step pursuant to the purported criminal proceeding would cause prejudice to the petitioner in any manner whatsoever in violation of Article 21 of the. Constitution of India in any manner whatsoever till the disposal of the writ application;(b) A writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued directing the concerned...
Tag this Judgment!