Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1955Cal159,59CWN369
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is one of the defendants in a suit for partition which was instituted on 1-6-1951 by the first opposite-party in the Court of the Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas, at Alipore. Besides a plot of land with building thereupon and some paddy lands in Barisha within the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court, the schedule of the properties of which partition was sought included land and building in the town of Chandernagore which was not, on 1-6-1951, comprised within the territory of India. The defendant pleaded 'inter alia' that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as some of the properties were in Chandernagore.2. An issue was framed on this question and taken up for decision first. The learned Subordinate Judge held that as the Code of Civil Procedure became applicable to Chandernagore from 2-5-1951, his Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.3. It is contended before us that this decision was wrong, inasmuc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal414
R.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference Under Section. 66 (1), Income Tax Act. On an application, by the Commissioner of Income Tax Calcutta, the following question of law has been formulated by the Tribunal for answer by this Court.'Whether in the circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 6698/- paid out to Mr. Mitchell-Innes. wholly & exclusively for the purposes of the business was a revenue expenditure so as to-be allowable as an admissible deduction under Section 10 (2) (XII), Income Tax Act (as it stood, before its amendment in 1946).'2. Messrs. Piggot Chapman & Co. is a firm of exchange brokers Mr. Mitchell-Innes & Mr. Danbeny who were working in partnership as exchange brokers, under the name & style of Halford Smith & Co. entered into ah agreement on 22-10-1919 with the partners of the assessee-firm Piggot Chapman & Co. It is not necessary for our present purpose to state in full the terms of this agreement. Broadly speaking Messrs. Mitchell-Innes & Danbeny who were the sole exc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal177,61CWN154
Lahiri, J.1. This second appeal is by the heirs of the deceased plaintiff Tarapada Roy, The facts which are relevant for the purposes of this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. One Jatindra Prosad Roy Choudhury (defendant No. 7) held a tenancy under defendants Nos. 1 to 5, the Pal Choudhury landlords, at an annual jama of Rs. 29/4 as. The Pal Choudhury landlords obtained a rent decree against Jatindra in Rent Suit No. 1045 of 1929 of the Munsif's Court at Katwa, and in execution of that decree the defaulting tenancy was solid in Rent Execution Case No. 202 of 1931 and purchased by the plaintiff Tarapada Roy on the 17th April, 1931. This sale was confirmed on the 30th May, 1931. On the 16th May, 1939, this tenancy was again auction sold at a certificate sale held under the provisions of now repealed Chapter XIII(A) of the Bengal Tenancy Act at the instance of the Pal Choudhury landlords, and the certificate debtor against whom this proceeding was taken was Jatindra Prosad Roy Chou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal203,66CWN577
S.K. Sen, J.1. Criminal revision Case No. 525 of 1960 referred to this Full Bench arises from a case pending in the Court of Sri R.N. Banerjee, Magistrate, 1st Class, Aansol, against the petitioner Prova Debi and two others. In that case on the complaint of the opposite party Mrs. Fernandez, three accused including the petitioner Prova Debi were summoned, Prova Debi being summoned under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. On her prayer she was permitted to Be represented by a pleader under Section 205 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case was thereafter transferred to Sri R.N. Banerjee, Magistrate, 1st Class for disposal. When the stage arrived for examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner Prova Debi to appear in person, observing that in view of the ruling of the Calcutta High Court, he could not permit the petitioner to be examined through her pleader and that she must appear personally in Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal588,(1952)56CALLT500(HC)
Das, J.1. This rule was issued by this Court calling upon the Administrator and/or the District Magistrate of Chandernagore to shew cause why the proceedings pending in the Court of Sessions, Chandernagore against the petitioner should not be quashed.2. On 31-1-1951, a petition of complaint was filed before Sri K. P. Roy, learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Chandernagore and Magistrate, 1st Class Chandernagore, by one Dabiran Bibi on the following allegations.3. The complainant and her children were in occupation of a plot of land and of huts standing thereon, in Chandernagore as a tenant under the petitioner.4. In Falgoon 1356 B. S. (February-March 1950) communal disturbances broke out in Chandernagore. The complainant and her children left for East Pakistan. After the disturbances had subsided, the complainant with her children returned to Chandernagore in Jaistha or Asarh 1357 B. S. (May-July 1950) and came to learn that the petitioner had caused her huts to be demolished and had tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal251,(1976)2CompLJ539(Cal),81CWN113
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. The Division Bench consisting of A. K. Sen, B. C. Roy, JJ. has referred the above revision cases to the Special Bench in view of the questions of great public importance involved therein. The questions relate to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 5-B of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act 1 of 1954) hereinafter referred to as the said Act, with reference to the date of their application to raiyati and under-raiyati holdings and consequences arising therefrom.2. The relevant facts are as follows :--On December 18, 1970 the Assistant Settlement Officer Settlement 'C' Camp No. IIA, Diamond Harbour, initiated proceedings under Section 44(2a) of the said Act for revising the finally published record-of-rights in respect of some khatians within his jurisdiction, which, according to him, were incorrectly recorded with auction purchaser the opposite party herein, as raiyat. Proceedings in respect of entries of khatians Nos. 10, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal273
ORDERA.N. Ray, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint. The amendment sought for is proposed paragraph 12(a) namely, that due notice under Section 80 was duly served on the defendant over two months prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was instituted on 26-4-1958. The summons is dated 3-5-1958. Two points were urged against the proposed amendment. First, that the application is a belated one, second, that the application introduces a new cause of action.2. I shall first deal with the question whether the amendment sought for is one which introduces a new cause of action. In other words, thequestion is whether notice under Section 80 of theCode of Civil Procedure is a part of the plaintiffscause of action. If it is a part of the plaintiffscause of action the defendant contends that theapplication should be refused because first, thecause of action is barred by limitation and secondly, leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is,necessary therefor and the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal328,65CWN770,[1961]12STC535(Cal)
ORDERSinha, J. 1. The facts in this case are briefly as follows: The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and carries on business as an auctioneer. It is stated in the petition that the business of the petitioner is that of auctioning third party's goods and bringing the seller and buyer together for effecting the sale against a certain rate or percentage of remuneration. The petitioner company is registered as a 'dealer' under the provisions of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner submitted returns for the four quarters ending, last day of March 1950 and for the four quarters ending the last day of March, 1951. It was contended by the petitioner that it was not liable to assessment to sales tax in respect of all its business, as an auctioneer, because as such it was not a 'dealer' within the meaning of the said Act. The Commercial Tax Officer by his orders dated 28-10-1954 and 19-11-1954, rejected ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1996]222ITR632(Cal)
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release Jitendra Kumar Banthia, the father of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'), who is said to have been detained in civil prison by respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the relevant rules contained in the Second Schedule appended thereto.2. The detenu has been carrying on the business of jute and distributorship in cinematographic films. Allegedly because of losses suffered by the detenu, he could not pay his income-tax dues to the extent of a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs and odd. It is not disputed that the detenu who was being assessed under the provisions of the said Act, even did not file his income-tax returns after 1986 allegedly on the ground that he did not have taxable income. On February 23, the detenu was arrested and on that date itself he was sent to Alipore Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal355
Sinha, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Munsif, third court, Sealdah under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 228 of the Constitution. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: The plaintiff Rama Sundari Devi is the owner of premises No. 18 Riverside Road which is within the cantonment area of Barrackpore. The defendant was a tenant thereof at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/- There is a dispute as to who was to pay the rates and taxes. Oh 17th March, 1958 the defendant filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of the fair rent under Section 10 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 170/- per month inclusive of all cantonment taxes. In an appeal therefrom, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenth Court, Alipore fixed the fair rent at Rs. 188 per month inclusive of all cantonment taxes. On or about 7th December, 1960 the plaintiff served notice to quit upon the defendant and upon failing to get vac...
Tag this Judgment!