Kolkata Court February 1972 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.
Raghunandan Jalan Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1972
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT476(Cal)
Prodyot Kumar Banerjee, j.1. This Rule is directed against a show cause notice as well as the order of confiscation and penalty being annexure B and I of the petition. The fact appears from the show cause notice is that on receipt of some information the respondent the Customs officer searched the premises and recovered it is alleged five pieces of gold bars of foreign alleged to have been imported without a valid permit from the respective party of India under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Along with the show cause notice there was brief outline stated in paragraph as follows : -'From the facts and circumstances of the case it is abundantly clear that five pieces of gold bars mentioned above were illicitly imported into India from a foreign territory in violation of Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) notification no. 12 (II) F 1/48 dated 25-8-68 (as amended) issued under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 194...
Ramesh Prosad Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal12
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The connected appeal in this Court was against the award of the Arbitrator. The judgment of this Court was delivered on May 12. 1970. Thereafter the petitioner made an application for the certified copies of the judgment and decree on May 13, 1970. The certified copies were made ready for delivery on July 3, 1970, The petitioner should have made the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on August 1, 1970, taking into consideration the time taken for obtaining the certified copies. The petitioner, however. did not make the application. Instead the petitioner detected certain defects in the drawing up of the decree and made an application for the correction of the decree of this Court. The decree was directed to be corrected on August 21, 1970. It is not disputed that the petitioner is entitled to a fresh p...
Madanlal Khaitan Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1972
Reported in: [1972]29STC625(Cal)
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in this rule is as to whether sugar candy is exempted from the operation of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (West Bengal Act 4 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the said Sales Tax Act, 1954) by virtue of the notification dated 3rd March, 1958, issued under Section 26 of the said Sales Tax Act, 1954, by the State Government and secondly whether such sugar candy comes within the definition of any of the notified commodities taxable under the said Sales Tax Act, 1954, in the notification dated 6th February, 1967,2. In order to decide the aforesaid issues it would be necessary to refer to the changes in the relevant statutory provisions and the notifications issued thereunder from time to time as also to certain undisputed facts. On 1st July, 1941, the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (Bengal Act6 of 1941) (hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act, 1941) came into effect This Sales Tax Act of 1941 imposed incidenc...
Sm. Nirmala Auddy Vs. Sm. Monoroma Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal256
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. These two Rules were obtained by a tika tenant and are directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Alipore, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 7-A of the Calcutta Tika Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1969.2. The landlady opposite party filed two applications for eviction under Section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, against the petitioner on the ground of default and her own requirement for the purpose of construction of building on the disputed holdings. The Controller allowed the said applications on 17-9-1966 on the ground of default only; he found that the landlady did not require the land for the purpose of building. On appeal from the said order of the Controller, the appellate court found that the landlady proved her case of requirement. The petitioner moved this Court in Revision against the said appellate order. This Court affirmed the order of the appellate court, sent back the case to the Controller to pr...
Baidyanath Kundu Vs. Sm. Jyotshna Rani Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal443,76CWN720
ORDERMurari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This Rule is directed against order No. 56 dated February 2, 1971, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Midnapur, in a proceeding under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. By the said order the learned Munsif struck out the defence of the petitioner against delivery of possession.2. The opposite party filed the suit for ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of reasonable requirement. It was alleged by the opposite party that the petitioner failed to pay rent since September 1966. Further, it was alleged by the opposite party that the deposit of rent made by the petitioner with the Rent Controller since November, 1967 and also the deposit made by the petitioner in Court after entering appearance in the suit, were all invalid deposits. The petitioner did not make any application under Section 17 (2) of the Act.3. The defence of the petitioner was, that he paid rent ...
Narandas Paramanand Das Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1972
Reported in: [1975]98ITR453(Cal)
P.K. Banerjee, J.1. This rule is directed against a notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why an order imposing a penalty should not be made, for the petitioner without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return which the petitioner is required to furnish by a notice given under Section 22(1)/22(2)/34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or which the petitioner is required to furnish under Section 139(1) or by a notice given under Section 139(2)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by the said Section 139(1) or by another notice asking the petitioner why a penalty should not be imposed for failure to pay the advance tax as required under the law. The petitioner is a partnership firm. The petitioner applied for registration of the firm but it was not allowed. The petitioner appealed against the order of refusal t...
Jahar Lal Manna Vs. Sri Tarakeswar Jew's Shebait and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal376
Sankar Prasad Mttra, J.1. This is a second appeal from the Judgment of the Additional Subordinate judge,Hooghly, delivered on the 4th January, 1958. The dispute relates to about 6.89 acres of land under khatian No. 238 in Mouza Chowtara, P.S. Dhaniakhali in the district of Hooghly. One Bholanath Jana was a tenant in respect of this land under Satis Giri, the Mohunt of the Hrishikesh Asram of Tarakeswar. On the 22nd December, 1932 Bholanath sold some portions of this land to the defendants Nos. 7 and 8. The defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are the heirs of Bholanath and the defendant No. 1 is the present landlord.2. In 1937, the landlord filed a rent suit against the defendants Nos. 3 to 8. This was Rent Suit No. 999 of 1937. The suit was decreed on February 2, 1938. Before this decree was put into execution, the plaintiff purchased the suit plots from the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 with notice to the landlord. The date of plaintiff's purchase is , the 19th December, 1938.3. Thereafter on the 12th M...
Electrical Industries Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Cal539
ORDERAjay Kumar Basu, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution taken out by the petitioner against the order passed by the Commissioner (Revision Application), Government of India and for issuance of appropriate writ.2. The matter arises out of 'drawback of duties of customs' on the imported material, namely, copper used in the manufacture of super synthetic enamelled copper wire and subsequently exported. Mr. M. Banerji, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends that the Customs authorities have arbitrarily and illegally rejected his client's petition for the said drawback as contemplated under Section 75 of the New Customs Act. Mr. Banerii contends that he first claimed for the drawback before the Assistant Collector of Customs. But by the order dated the 31st December. 1965, the said Assistant Collector rejected the claim for drawback as inadmissible. From that order his client appealed to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, for the said draw...
Sailendra Nath Ghosal Vs. Smt. Ena Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal128
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal under Clause (15) of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brotherSalil Kumar Dutt. J. Is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for ejectment.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit JEor ejectment against the defendant on the ground of reasonable requirement of the suit premises. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant had been a tenant under one Biswanath Mallick in respect of the suit premises which is the ground floor of premises No. 89/A, Garpar Road, Calcutta at a monthly rent of Rs. 28/- payable according to the English Calendar month. The plaintiff purchased the premises no. 89/A. Garpar Road from Its owner for valuable consideration by a registered conveyance dated February 18, 1966. As the plaintiff required the suit premises for her own use and occupation, she determined the tenancy of the defendant by a notice to quit and that the defendant, not having vacated the suit premises in terms of the notice, the suit was institu...
Sm. Sitala Debi Vs. Man Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal123,76CWN435
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against the Order No. 28 dated April 2, 1970 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 649 of 1969. The plaintiff instituted a suit on May 15. 1969 for recovery of possession of the suit premises held by the defendant as a monthly tenant according to English calendar month at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- payable according to the month of the tenancy, on notice to quit. The ground for eviction was default in payment of rent, the rent being in arrears from Oct. 1968. Admittedly the tenancywas governed by the West Bengal Pre-mises Tenancy Act. 1956 hereinafter re-ferred to as the said Act.2. The summons of the suit was duly served on May 30. 1969 and the defendant entered appearance on June 9 following, praying for time to file writ-ten statement for contesting the suit. On June 12. 1969. the defendant filed an application praying for permission to de-posit the rent for May 1969 as also cur-rent rents as they ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »