Kolkata Court May 1970 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal497
ORDERK.L. Roy, J.1. No amount of ingenious arguments by the learned Counsel for the respondents could convince me that this application should be rejected on any of the grounds urged by him. The petitioner, Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd., is a well-known company owning and manufacturing jute goods in its miffs at Champdani in the district of Hooghly. In 1960 a plant for the production or laminated jute goods by processing jute cloth or bags with waterproof polythene coated paper, gum tapes and other packaging items was installed in the petitioner's mill premises. It is claimed in the petition that this Converter Division was an entirely separated and segregated unit from the petitioner's jute mills but this is streneously denied in the affidavit-in-opposition where it is claimed that the said Converter Unit is situated within the petitioner's jute mills premises, having the same entrance and exit and was part of the said mills. The petitioners claims that for the purpose of processing jute go...
Surendra Mohan Mitra and ors. Vs. Republic Engineering Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal482,74CWN744
ORDERA.K. Mookerji, J. 1. This rule was obtained by workmen on an application under Article 227 of the Constitution and it is directed against an award of the Third Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. 2. The petitioners were workmen under the Opposite Party, M/s. Republic Engineering Corporation Limited. The workshop of the Company was within the jurisdiction of Behala Police Station. The petitioners were arrested on July 18, 1964 by the police under the Defence of India Rules. On the next day, however, they came out on bail, on condition, that they would not enter into any part of the area within the jurisdiction of Behaia Police Station. On 17th of February, 1964, the petitioners were charge-sheet-ed by the management on the ground that they were absenting themselves from work. There was a domestic enquiry against the petitioners and ultimately they were dismissed from the service with effect from the 16th June, 1964. A written demand for reinstatement was made on the 17th Tune, 1966 to t...
Bird and Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs for Exp ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal62
ORDERT.K. Basu, J.1. The petitioner Bird & Company (Private) Limited carries on business, inter alia, in the purchase and sale and export of lute fabrics.2. According to the petitioner, by an exchange of telegrams, it agreed to sell and South African Canvas Co. (Pt.) Ltd., a Company carrying on business, inter alia, in South Africa agreed to buy 50,000 yards of Hessian cloth of certain specifications c & f Lourenco Marques and another consignment of 50,000 yards of Hessian cloth of certain other specifications c & f Lourenco Marques.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the ultimate destination of the goods was unknown to the petitioner at the time the contract was concluded. In any event, the petitioner would have discharged all its obligations under the aforesaid agreement if the petitioner has shipped the said goods to Lourenco Marques andthe petitioner was not concerned with their ultimate destination.4. Thereafter on or about the 5th July, 1967 the petitioner received from the ...
Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1970
Reported in: [1972]83ITR386(Cal)
P.B. Mukharji, Actg. C.J.1. This wealth-tax reference proceeding is one more example showing the tussle between the balance-sheet value and the written down value.2. The statement of the case shows the following facts: The assessee is a public limited company doing business in the manufacture of aluminium goods. The assessment year is 1957-58. The material valuation date is 31st March, 1957. The fixed assets of the assessee-company are land, buildings, plant and machinery. They were valued at Rs. 2,19,982, Rs. 36,13,906 and Rs. 93,78,868, respectively, as on the 31st March, 1955, which was two years before the valuation date. This valuation did not take into account depreciation for the year ending 31st March, 1955, in respect of the buildings, plant and machinery. If that depreciation is taken into account the value of the respective assets was Rs. 34,93,999 and Rs. 88,07,047. One year later, i.e., on the 31st March, 1956, the same assets were valued at respectively Rs. 4,99,540, Rs. ...
C.K. Wadha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR782(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. In this petition the only point urged before me relates to the retention by the tax authorities of books of accounts and other documents of the petitioner under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that these books and documents wereseized in September, 1965. The seizure admittedly was in pursuance ofthe provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 132. And it would be necessaryto consider in this application the provisions of Sub-sections (8), (10) and(12) of the said section. These sub-sections are as follows: '(8) The books of account or other documents seized under Sub-section (1) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the seizure unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the Commissioner for such retention is obtained ....... (10) If a person legally entitled to the books of account or other documents seized under S...
Sm. Parul Bala Dassi Vs. Bangshidhar Nandi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Cal270
D. Basu, J.1. Girindra and Nagen-dra were two brothers. Girindra's only son Mohan, predeceased him, leaving his widow -- the plaintiff-appellant Parul Bala. Girindra died issueless in 1364 B. S. (December 1958), his wife having predeceased him, leaving his nephew, defendant No. 1 and the latter's son, defendant No. 2.2. The plaintiff came to Court with the case that defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who had managed to obtain two deeds of gifts in respect of the disputed properties on 30-1-1950 and 28-5-1957, from her father-in-law, during his life-time, are liable to maintain the plaintiff out of the disputed properties, which were the exclusive property of her father-in-law and out of which she was being maintained by her father-in-law while he was alive. She also averred that she had no separate property of her own and that she had not acquired any property from her husband or father-in-law out of which she could maintain herself. Since defendants refused to maintain her on her demand on 8-6-...
Dr. Samarendra Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Khalilur Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Cal481,74CWN712
P.B. Mukharji, A.C.J. 1. These are six applications made under Article 228 of the Constitution. They raise the question of the vires of Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 as amended by Section 4 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, (Act XXXIV of 1969). 2. The two points raised in these applications relate to substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution viz., (1) Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, (Ad XXXIV of 1969) is discriminatory and as such ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and (2) that Section 13 of the said Amending Act imposes unreasonable restrictions upon the petitioners' fundamental rights to acquire, hold and. dispose of property guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and as such void under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. These two points are undoubtedly substantial questions of flaw as to the interpretation of the Constitution. 3. Article 22...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›