Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1968Cal146
Sinha, C.J.1. The facts in this case art shortly as follows: The respondent Jatindra Kumar Das Choudhury was employed by the Hindustan Cables Ltd. of Rupnara-yanpur, Burdwan (hereinafter referred to as 'company'). Sometime in 1956 the employees of the company started a multipurpose co-operative society known as the Hindustan Cables Employee's Co-operative Society Ltd which was registered under the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'society'). The said respondent was appointed the Secretary of the said Society from its very inception The statutory auditor employed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal, took the audit of the said Society for the year 1960-61 and made his report dated the 26th of March 1963 On the basis of the said audit report, the Registrar dissolved the Managing Committee of the Society on the ground of mismanagement and appointed an administrator who was the Managing Direc-tor of the company. On or about the 6th of March 1963...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were heard together and we propose to deliver this common judgment for the disposal of the two appeals.2. I.T.A. No. 15 of 2002 relates to the assessment year 1982-83 and the I.T.A. No. 16 of 2002 relates to the assessment year 1983-84 and are directed against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.3. The I.T.A. No. 15 of 2002 has been admitted for hearing on the following two questions:1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Section 3(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act is applicable on the association of persons born out of joint-venture agreement instead of right section i.e. Section 3(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act 1961?2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law for not passing any order on cross objection on the points of initiatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1995]214ITR532(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has stated the following questions of law to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that if the assessee had been allowed to vary the meaning of the expression 'previous' year in respect of the business or profession and such previous year was of thirteen months or more, the depreciation allowance calculated as per Rule 5(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, had to be increased by multiplying it by a fraction of which the numerator would be the number of complete months in such previous year and the denominator would be twelve 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The facts found by the Tribunal are as under : The assessee is Rexor India Ltd. and the assessment year involved is 1984-85. The assessee h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1978]112ITR111(Cal)
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J.1. The subject-matter of this writ petition relates to a notice dated the 18th June, 1973, published in the Official Gazette under Section 269D(1) of the Income-tax Act, whereby proceedings were sought to be initiated by way of acquisition of the property of the petitioner being a premises in Block B in New Alipore in Calcutta. The said notice reads as follows :' FORM INTS------------------------NOTICE UNDER SECTION 269D(1) OF THEINCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (43 of 1961)SEAL OF THE Ref. No. Ac-8/R-II/Cal/73-74Office of theInspecting Asst. Government of IndiaCommissioner of Office of the......Income-tax, Acquisition Dated 18-6-73Range-II, Calcutta. 2. Whereas, I, M. N. Tiwary, being the competent authority under Section 269B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), have reason to believe that the immovable property, having a fair market value exceeding Rs. 25,000 and bearing No. 29/NA (E.P. & W.P.) situated at Block ' B', New Alipur (and more fully described in the Sche...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1996(73)FLR1436],(1997)IIILLJ892Cal
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of his retirement dated March 16, 1994 Annexure-C to the writ petition by which the petitioner was retired from service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (L. I .C. or Corporation, for short) with effect from that date on completion of the age of 58 years and odd days. On that day the petitioner was serving as a Class-1 category employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The petitioner's contention is that he, being a 'transferred employee', is entitled to retire on completion of 60 years of age under Clause (1) of Regulation 19 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (Staff Regulations, for short) whereasthe case of the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India is that the petitioner has to retire on completion of 58 years of age under Clause (2) of the said Regulation 19. The petitioner's contention is that initially he was appointed as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal625,66CWN774
S.P. Mitra, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant No. 1 namely, the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited at all material times carried on business, inter alia, of life insurance, at No. 4, Chittaranjan Avenue in Calcutta. By the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance No. 1 of 1956 the entire management and administration of the affairs and business of the life department of the defendant No. 1 had vested in and come under the direct control of the Union of India with effect from the 19th January, 1956.2. On the 22nd November, 1952 a local agent of the defendant No. 1 approached the husband of the plaintiff No. 1 Shantilal Chhotalal Patel for having insurance on his life and on the persuasion of the agent Shantilal agreed to have his life insured with the defendant No. 1 for the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The local agent asked Shantilal to put his signature on the proposal form whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal443,65CWN69
ORDERU.C. Law, J. 1. The hearing of this application under Sections 397, 398, 399 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 has taken considerable time and the arguments were only concluded on 14th June, 1960, when I reserved my judgment; but I directed the matter to appear on the list on 16th June, 1960, marked 'To be mentioned' as I wanted certain information regarding the cash balance in the current banking accounts of the company. It may be mentioned here that prior to this the respondants had given an undertaking to Court (which still subsists) not to withdraw or deal with the compensation money amounting to over Rs. 35,00,000/- and the accrued interest thereon lying invested in short deposit accounts in different banks in the company's account. On 16th June 1960 Mr. R.C. Deb appearing on behalf of P.N. Talukdar informed me that the amount lying in current accounts of the company with several banks amounted to over Rs. 1,67,000/-. Besides, there was also some cash in hand. This undoubted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1964Cal388
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner, Murari Mohan Ghose against the Life Insurance Corporation of India and other persons associated with that Corporation. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus upon the respondents to cancel, rescind and withdraw the orders contained in the letters Nos. Dev/AN dated the 4th December, 1958. ADM/DEV/15037 dated the 20th June, 1939 and Dev/AG/16481 dated 6/7th July, 1959, directing him in effect to act as Field Officer. These letters are annexed as G, J and K to the petition.2. The letter of the 4th December, 1958, informed the petitioner that his services had been transferred from National Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta to the Corporation once again and he was placed under City Branch Unit No. 4 as Field Officer with effect from 1-12-58. It also says that he would be paid remuneration on the existing terms till he was categorised on the basis of his performance from 1-12-58 to 30-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1962Cal45,65CWN23,(1961)ILLJ59Cal
ORDERG.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is an application by the General Secretary of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association against (1) the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone Life Insurance Corporation of India with his office at Hindusthan Building, Calcutta, (2) the Divisional Manager, Hindusthan Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd. and (3) the Chairman, Life Insurance Coporation of India, Bombay, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to cancel the basic pay actually drawn on August 31, 1956 by persons who were formerly employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited and to give effect to their basic pay in accordance with law for the purpose For fitting in with the new scale adopted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and for other reliefs. The petitioner has no personal interest in the matter and is seeking to get redress for the ex-employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited. 2 to 12. (After stating...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1970Cal193
K.L. Roy, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff firm against the Life Insurance Corporation of India for arrears of remuneration or in the alternative for damages in respect of an agreement Between the plaintiff firm and Aryya Insurance Company Limited. The case for the plaintiff is that on or about the 1st June. 1954 Aryya Insurance Company Limited appointed the plaintiff firm as its special representative for the purpose of introducing persons willing to act as insurance agents of the company. It was further agreed that on the acceptance by the company and appointment of any such persons as its agents the plaintiff guaranteed that insurance business worth at least Rupees five lacs annually would be procured by such agents yielding a premium collection of about Rs. 20,000/-, and in consideration thereof the plaintiff firm would be entitled to an allowance of Rs. 200/- per month and in addition a flat rate of commission of 65 per cent on the first year's premium collection including age...
Tag this Judgment!