Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1954Cal399,58CWN106
Harries, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order and decree of Bose, J., dated 13-6-1950.2. The plaintiff who had been employed as a permanent Bridge Inspector under the Bengal and Assam Railway brought the suit for a declaration that he was still in the employment of the Railway, which of course was a Railway owned by the Union of India.3. The plaintiff had sustained a serious in-jury to his back and was away from employment for a considerable time. Eventually, he was examined by medical officers on behalf of the Railway and he was declared to be unfit and his services were terminated from the date of the certificate declaring him unfit;.4. The plaintiff apparently attempted to get the Railway authorities to change their view but they made it clear that they could not re-employ the plaintiff. He, therefore, brought a suit and the relief claimed originally was a declaration that he had been wrongfully dismissd and there was a further prayer for damages. Later an application was made to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1939Cal15
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and it arises out of a suit for redemption. The plaintiffs' case briefly is as follows : The property in suit belonged to defendant 2. He mortgaged it on 27th Asar 1337 B.S. corresponding to 11th July 1920, to defendant 1. He executed a second mortgage in favour of the father of the plaintiffs on 27th Pous 1337 corresponding to January 1930. In the year 1931, the first mortgagee brought a suit upon his mortgage being Title Suit No. 375 of 1931 claiming the sum of Rs. 465-14-0. That suit was decreed on compromise for a sum of Rs. 399. In execution of that decree the first mortgagee purchased the mortgaged property on 19th January 1933 and took delivery of possession on 7th December 1933. The second mortgagee was not made, a party to this mortgage suit. Between these two latter dates the second mortgagee brought a suit on his mortgage being Title Suit No. 833 of 1933. In this suit he impleaded the first mortgagee but he did not seek to redeem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 90CWN370,(1994)IIILLJ825Cal
P.K. Mukherjee, J.1. The short point that calls for determination in this case is whether an employee is entitled to the gratuity in terms of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, after leaving the service and being re-appointed subsequently by the Company, as, in view of clear provisions contained in the said section that gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not more than five years.(a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. 2. In this matter, the employee claimed a sum of Rs. 4,745.25 ps. being gratuity payable to him, on the basis of 19 years of continuous service, and the controlling authority refused the claim but in an appeal, the Appellate Authority had allowed the claim and the petitioner moved the present writ petition against the appellate order.3. Although the Rule was issued by this Court as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 152Ind.Cas.510
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 15, Letters Patent, against a judgment of my learned brother Bartley, J.2. It appears that the Maharaja of Tippera sued for khas possession Of certain lands impleading as defendants in the suit, two sets of persons, the first set claiming a right as superior landlords or talukdars and the second set, the tenants claiming to hold under them. The suit was decreed with costs against the landlords and certain tenants who had joined in contesting. It appears, however, that the costs although they were leviable from the landlords and the contesting tenants jointly and severally, were, as a matter of fact, realized from two of the landlords only. These landlords who are the appellants before us, brought a suit for contribution against the other defendants, vie, the other landlords and tenants who had contested with them, the original suit. The Munsif dismissed the suit as against the tenants, being of opinion that they were not liable to contribute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal460
Buckland, Ag. C. J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mr. Blank, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, dated 28th September 1931, on an application under Section 22, Workmen's Compensation Act, preferred by the appellant Abdul Karim. Upon the application there are endorsed by the Commissioner, first a note in which he writes 'where is the reasonable cause from 11th March till date' and below his order: 'Pleader states he has no further cause to show. Claim dismissed as not maintainable under Section 10(1) of the Act,' both dated 28th September 1931. The question to be decided is whether or not the application was barred by limitation which appears to have been the view which the Commissioner took under the section specified by him. Section 10(1) of the Act is as follows:No proceedings for the recovery of compensation shall be maintainable before a commissioner unless ...... the claim for compensation with respect to such an accident has been instituted within six mont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1969Cal406
Sinha, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Masud J. dated 14-9-1967. The facts are briefly as follows: By an order dated November 29, 1954 certain disputes were referred to sole arbitration of the late Dr. Radhabinod Pal. On May 27, 1955, the arbitrator made his award. Judgment on award was passed on May 22, 1956. The award related to the adjudication of certain disputes between members of the same family. The relevant clause in the said award is Clause (10) which runs as follows:'10 (a) That 1. Sri Dhirendra Nath Sen 2. Sri Priya Nath Sen 3. Sri Anadi Nath Sen 4. Sri Jitendra Nath Sen 5. Sri Satyendra Nath Sen 6. Sri Fanindra Nath Sen 7. Sri Rabindra Nath Sen shall each pay severally to Smt. Santasila Debi the sum of Rs. 5000 (five thousand) each (in all Rs. 35000 thirty five thousand) in full satisfaction of her claim to the dividends from the New India Glass Works (Calcutta) Ltd., upto the close of the year 1945-46 as also in full discharge of her claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal98,1961CriLJ242,65CWN712
ORDERD.N. Sinha, J.1. The facts in this case are shortly as follows: On the 25th October, 1958 one of the Customs officers at Dum Dum Airport, while examining a wooden case declared to contain rosogolla, achar, papar and dried vegetables under cover of Shipping Bill No. A. E. F. No. 761 dated 18-10-58 and consignment Note No. 085/SR 1082755 to be shipped to Hongkong per Swiss Air, detected Rs. 51,000/- in Indian Currency Notes of hundred rupees denomination concealed in a specially made cavity on the battens nailed to the inner sides of the case.2. In the shipping bill, the consignor was shown to be one Ramghawan Singh, Karnani Mansions, Park Street, Calcutta, and the consignee was shown to be one Iswarlal, 41, Wyndh am Street, Hongkong.It was found from the shipping bill that the case in question was originally to be shipped per M/s Thai Airways Co., Ltd., but it was ultimately booked with the Swiss Air. Enquiries revealed that no person by the name of Kamghawan Singh ever lived or wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1881)ILR6Cal794
Wilson, J.1. The main question in this case is a pure question of law,---namely, whether, by the law in force in Calcutta, the widow of an Armenian, married before the Dower Act (XXIX of 1839), is entitled to dower out of lands which her husband held during the marriage for an estate of inheritance, as against a Hindu purchaser for value from the husband during his life.2. There is, so far as I can find, no express authority upon the question. It must, therefore, be dealt with upon consideration of principle.3. The plaintiff's claim is founded upon two propositions,---1st, that, by the law of England, a widow would, under like circumstances, be entitled to-dower; 2nd, that the law of England governs the present case.4. The first of these propositions is no doubt correct. The question is as to-the second. It is often said that the law administered by this Court is,--- except in certain matters affecting Hindus and Mahomedans, and except so far as statutory provisions have modified it,--...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1951]20ITR484(Cal)
CHAKRAVARTTI, J. - The question involved in this reference is almost a conundrum. It arises our of the following facts :The assessee Messrs. Chainrup Sampatram is a registered firm constituted of two partners, Sumermull and Budhmull, who are brother and hold equal shares. The firm is resident and ordinarily resident but the partners are non-residents, being residents of Bikaner. I should rather say that they were non-residents, in the year of account which was 1998 R. N. because to say at the present time that a person residing at Bikaner is non-resident will be inappropriate. The firm had its place of business at 9, Armenian Street, Calcutta, and carried on business as bullion dealers, dealing mainly in silver. The method of accounting followed by the firm is the mercantile method. For the accounting year 1998 R. N. the firm returned an income of Rs. 1,16,297 for income-tax purposes, of which Rs. 73,652 was shown as income from business. The same income was returned for excess profits...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA No.1927 of 2014 ITAT No.74 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA Versus M/S.MKJ ENTERPRISES LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 12th August, 2014. Appearance: Ms.Smita Das De, Adv.The Court: This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 27th January, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal C Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A.No.729/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. Two following questions have been raised for admission by the Revenue being: I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was Justified in law to uphold the order of the CIT(A) holding, inter alia, that Rule 8D is applicable from assessment year 2008-09 onwards not for earlier period by relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of DCIT -vs.- Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Company Lim...
Tag this Judgment!