Kolkata Court August 1972 Judgments
Assistant Controller of Customs for Prevention and ors. Vs. the New Ce ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal91,77CWN14
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This appeal is by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Preventive Officer and Union of India against the judgment of K. L. Roy, J., dated 26-11-1969, quashing an authorisation under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, all proceedings taken thereunder.2. The respondent is an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956, and has its registered office at 11, Give Row, Calcutta. M/s. Sahu Jain Ltd., has also its registered office in the said premises. On the nth of May, 1968, the appellant No. 2 along with several persons searched the said premises in pursuance to an authorisation issued by the appellant No. 1 under Section 105 of the Act. In course of the said search, various books, papers, documents belonging to the respondent company were seized by the appellant No. 2. On 16th of May, 1968, the respondent moved this Court on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the order...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamapada Bhattacharyya Vs. Ajit Kumar Basu Mallick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal336
ORDERHazra, J. 1. This is an application by the purchasers at auction sale of premises No. 64 Karbala Tank Lane, Calcutta for an order, inter alia to put the petitioners in possession of the said premises. 2. The facts are shortly as follows: 3. Sometimes in the year 1965 this suit was instituted for enforcement of mortgage in respect of premises No. 64, Karbala Tank Lane. Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). In the same year another suit being suit No. 2026 of 1965 was instituted against the same defendants by one Jatindra Nath Saha in respect of the saidpremises. On January 28, 1966 official receiver was appointed receiver over and in respect of the said premises in Suit No. 2026 of 1965. On September 1, 1967, preliminary mortgage decree was passed in this suit namely, Suit No. 780 of 1965. On April 7, 1971 final decree for sale of the said premises was passed in this suit. On August 21, 1971 auction sale was held by the Registrar. In execution of the decree the p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR563(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, relates to the assessment year 1955-56, the corresponding previous year being the year ended 31st March, 1955. For the aforesaid assessment year, the assessee had claimed deduction in respect of Rs. 20,065 spent on account of the travelling expenses, etc., of three technicians of Messrs. Reynolds Metal Company of America, who came to India for the purpose of examining the assessee's manufacturing plants. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure on the ground that it was capital in nature. There was an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that as a result of the recommendations made by the technicians of Messrs. Reynolds Metal Co., the assessee had gained an advantage of a permanent and an enduring nature. It will be necessary to set out the relevant portion of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner:'7. The next gro...
Tag this Judgment!Shew Paper Exchange Vs. Income-tax Officer, c Ward and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR186(Cal)
S.C. Ghose, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the constitutional writ jurisdiction of this court, inter alia, for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated May 13, 1971 made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Calcutta, on the miscellaneous application of the petitioner in the I.T.As. Nos. 14078 and 14079 of 1967-68 for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 and for a direction for re-hearing the I.T.A. No. 11416 of 1967-68, I.T.A. No. 11419 of 1967-68 and I.T.A. No. 14077 of 1967-68.2. The facts leading to the present application as stated in the petition are set out hereunder :The petitioner is a partnership firm. One Durga Prasad Nathani carried on business under the name and style of M/s. Shew Paper Exchange with effect from January 24, 1958. After November 10, 1958, i.e., the closing date of the accounting year of the said business, the adoptive mother of Durga Prasad and Durga P...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Nath Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal94
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. The petitioner in these rules holds a gazetted civil post in the department of Education, Government of West Bengal. Since May 10, 1966, he was the District Soeial Education Officer at Cooch Bchar till July 14, 1971 when he was transferred to Burdwan. The petitioner according to his case holds high academic qualifications and was appointed to his present office on selection by the Public Service Commission. Prior to his posting at Cooch Bchar, the petitioner was posted at Bankura as the District Social Education Officer from July 13, 1962 to July 9, 1964 and thereafter to Midnapore after making over charge to his successor Smt. Kana Sen Gupta. During his stay at Bankura the petitioner incurred the displeasure of Sukumar Sen Gupta, then the District Magistrate and Collector of Bankura respondent No. 3 over arrangement of stalls of book exhibits in the local exhibition in February 1964 made ultimately by him overriding the arrangement of the petitioner leadin...
Tag this Judgment!New Beerbhoom Coal Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Joint Director of Mines, Safe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal17
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. These three Rules were issued on as many Writ petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 226(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners are New Beerbhoom Coal Co. Ltd. Bengal Coal Co. Ltd., Katras Jharriah Coal Co, Ltd. and some of their shareholders challenging the legality and validity of Regulation 191 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 the petitioners are praying for a Writ In the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from enforcing or taking any steps to enforce or giving any effect to the impugned Regulation and further commanding the respondents to forbear from taking any action against the petitioners end their servants for violation of such Regulation.2. The Regulation impugned is the one which was incorporated into the Coal Mines Regulations framed under the Mines Act. 1952 by the Central Government by the notification No. GSR 1298 dated August 22, 1967, The Impugned Regulation is set out hereunder :--'191. Use, supply and main...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanath Agarwalla Vs. Goenka and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal253,1972CriLJ1,77CWN317
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. These appeals were first heard by a Division Bench consisting of K. C. Das Gupta. J. and B. K. Guha. J. On the 18th September, 1958. the Division Bench referred certain questions of law to a Full Bench for determination. When the matter came up before the Full Bench, the reference was found to be incompetent on the ground that the whole case had not been referred. The Full Bench sent the case back to the Division Bench by its order of the 30th April, 1962. The appeals then came up before another Division Bench presided over by Baneriee, J. sitting with D. Basu. J. The Second Division Bench has referred the entire case in the three ap-peals to the Full Bench under Chap ter VII. Rule 2 of the Appellate Side Rules including the que tions of law that were referred by the previous Division Bench.2. The facts are that on October 4, 1953. Jwala Pro ad Sharma and J. N. Minda. Arbitrators in the matter of Goenka & Co. (Sales) Ltd., Messrs. Goenka & Co. and Ramnath As...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Aloka Dey Vs. Mrinal Kanti Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal393
Gupta, J. 1. This is an appeal by the wife and it is directed against a decision of the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, allowing her husband's petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for judicial separation. The parties were married on December 14, 1950 at Calcutta according to Hindu rites. In the petition the husband alleged that his wife is a bad tempered, quarrelsome and intolerant woman and that all his efforts to correct her ways have proved ineffective. On October 21, 1951 a daughter was born of this marriage. On or about April 24, 1952, it is alleged, a love letter written by her to one Sudhangshu Sekhar Chose was detected and she left thematrimonial home leaving the baby. She was later found in her father's house where she went on living for about 8 or 9 months. Thereafter through the intervention of Dr. D. P. Basil, a well known physician related to the parties, she was taken back by her husband. It is stated that before she retu...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Sunit Pramanik Vs. Santipur Industries Co-operative Society Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal364,77CWN118
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. An Arbitrator (Shri B. Chartterjee, Inspector of Co-operative Societies, Santipur Development Block (Fulia), Nadia), appointed under the provisions of the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940, gave his judgment and award in Dispute Case No. 108N of 1969-70 on the 3rd January, 1971. The petitioner's case is that the Arbitrator issued a gist of the award on April 10, 1971.The petitioner received the said gist on the 16th April, 1971. Then the petitioner applied on the 23rd April, 1971, to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nadia, for a certified copy of the judgment and award. The Assistant Registrar by a letter dated the 24th August, 1971, requisitioned stamps for supply of the certified copy of the judgment and award. On the following day, namely, the 25th August, 1971, the petitioner deposited the requisite stamps for the certified copy. The petitioner received the certified copy...
Tag this Judgment!Rupchaya Cinema House and ors. Vs. District Magistrate, 24 Parganas an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Cal23,76CWN974
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. The petitioner No. I, a registered partnership firm with petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as partners, are the holders of a permanent cinema license. The license has been granted under the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), for exhibition by a cinematograph at Rupchaya Cinema at Kankapara, Village Berachampa P. S. Deganga, in the District of 24 Parganas. The said license was granted on May 8, 1970 for one year and is being renewed every year and is still remaining valid and enforceable and the petitioners are carrying on tbe business of exhibition of films by cinematograph at the said RUPChaya Cinema.2. The respondents Nos, 5 and 6 carried on business under the name and style of Banirupa Cinema at the said village Berachampa under a temporary indoor cinematographic license. The license expired in first week of July 1971 and the petitioners objected to the renewal of the said license and the license was not renew...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »