Kolkata Court June 1973 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.
Sri Surajmal JaIn Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC601(Cal)
Debiprosad Pal, J.1. The petitioner carries on the business of buying and selling goods under the name and style of Messrs. Padamah Engineering Corporation of which he is the sole proprietor. He is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Bengal Act), as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). It is alleged that on or about 28th January, 1967, respondent No. 1 visited the place of business of the petitioner, searched the same, saw and signed delivery orders, chalans, etc. and reported in writing about a sister concern in the name of Messrs. Ridhkaran Surajmal, which is alleged to function from the same premises. Acting on the said written report, respondent No. 1 held, inter alia, that the dealer Messrs. Ridhkaran Surajmal effected inter-State sale on 16th July, 1966 and held the dealer, Messrs. Ridhkaran Surajmal, to be liable to pay tax from 16th July, 1966. By the said order da...
Sm. Renuka Paul Vs. Dhirendra Nath Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ171
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This is a reference by Sri P, Dutta, Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Alipore under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending that an order dated 1st November, 1972 passed by Sri C. D. Chatterjee, Magistrate 1st Class, Alipore ordering attachment of Rs. 150/- from the pay of the second party and also issuing the said order on the State Government, the employer of the second party, to remit the amount to the court by the 15th of every month in a proceeding under Section 488 being case No. M 656 of 1966/T. Rule 571 of 1970 may be set aside.2. The facts leading on to the Reference are short and simple. An order of maintenance was passed under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the first party Smt. Renuka Paul at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month. The order was passed against the second party Dhirendra Nath Paul with effect from 22nd December, 1966. The second party however made default in payment to the extent of Rs. 2...
Deepchand Mini Vs. Ticamchand Mini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal222,78CWN478
ORDERS.C. Deb, J.1. In order to appreciate the questions involved in this specially assigned application it is necessary to set out below the material portion of the compromise decree dated March 22, 1968 passed in this suit which was filed by the plaintiff respondent claiming Rs. 16,204/-, with interim interests and costs against the petitioner defendant.'It is ordered and decreed that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. And in the event of the defendant paying to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 8,000/- in the following manner, it is further ordered and decreed that the plaintiff shall accept the same in full settlement of his claim in this suit. (1) Rs. 2,000/- on or before the 22nd day of March, 1968.(2) The balance sum of Rs. 6,000/- by quarterly instalments of Rs. 375/- each, th' first of such instalments to be paid on or before the 15th day of July, 1968 and the subsequent instalments to be paid by the 15th day of every three months thereafter. And it is f...
Anand Construction Works Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal550
ORDERRamendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,977/- which has been deducted by the then Province of Bihar from the plaintiff's bill in accordance with the conditions of a tender for the supply of stones, stone metals and gravel to the defendant for the purpose of repair and construction of certain portions of Grant Trunk Road. The tender was accepted by the Public Works Department of the then province of Bihar.2. The said tender, inter alia, provided the following clauses in the conditions of contract:'2. The contractor is to deliver the materials on or before the dates mentioned in the Tender, failing which he shall be subject to pay or allow one per cent. On the total amount of the contract for every day not exceeding ten days that he shall exceed his time as liquidated damages. 3. In every case in which the payment or allowances mentioned in Clause 2 shall have been incurred for ten consecutive days, the Executive Engineer shall have power either...
Giribala Shau and anr. Vs. Prova Misra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ172
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. This Rule is at the instance of the two accused-petitioners, Giri Bala Shau and Lachmi Shau, and is directed against an order dated the 31st January, 1973 passed by Sri Ramabilash Goswami, Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, convicting the two accused-petitioners under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, the accused-petitioner No. 1 is to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and accused-petitioner No. 2 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month in case No. C. 622 of 1970. The two co-accused were acquitted by the learned trying Magistrate.2. The facts of the case can be put in a short compass. Four accused-persons were placed on their trial before the learned trying Magistrate to answer a charge under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and two of them, viz. accused Nos. 3 and 4 were ultimately acquitted. The prosecution case briefly is that the accused persons had forcibly broken...
Jamshed Framroze Kalyanvala Vs. Mrs. Zerina Jamshed Kalyanvala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal111,77CWN1044
S.K. Datta, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury, J., dated March 30, 1973 on the application of the husband under Section 49 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act (Act III of 1936). The parties were married according to Parsi rites on December 6, 1958 and a son, Framroze, also known as Vip, was born to them on June 22, 1960. Thereafter on September 17, 1962 a daughter Leena was born to them. On January 4, 1967 the husband filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights while the wife also thereafter filed a suit for divorce or in the alternative, for judicial separation. The wife's suit was decreed on November 15, 1967 by Sushil Kumar Dutta, J., for judicial separation. Custody of the children was given to the father subject to some interim orders which were passed in course of those proceedings. It was directed thereby that the children who were studying as day scholars in St. Xaviers and Loreto House, Calcutta would spend during the terms of ...
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1973
Reported in: 78CWN115,[1974]93ITR96(Cal)
Debiprosad Pal, J.1. The petitioner-company owns and runs three paper mills situated at the following places:(1) No. 1 Mill at Titaghar, West Bengal. (2) No. 2 Mill at Kankinara, West Bengal. (3) No. 3 Mill at Choudwar, Cuttack, Orissa. There are 32 varying qualities or types of paper alleged to have been manufactured at the said three paper mills. Some of these different varieties of paper are as follows :(a) White printing and writing light and heavy. (b) Coloured printing and writing heavy and light. (c) Unbleached varieties. (d) Embossed covers. (e) Blottings. (f) Paste boards. (g) Coated paper. (h) Impression paper, etc. The petitioner made an application dated 21st June, 1967, in the statutory form before the appropriate authority for the grant of a tax credit certificate under Section 280ZD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with the Tax Credit Certificate (Excise Duty on Excess Clearance) Scheme, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme...
Sm. Pratima Sarkar Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal434
Janah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated August 14, 1969, discharging the rule obtained by the appellant and the respondent No. 6 of the present appeal, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant and the respondent No. 6 alleged that they were the recorded owners of premises Nos. 29-B and 29-C Gariahat Road, respectively, while the respondent No. 5 was the recorded owner of premises No. 14/A/1, Gariahat Road (hereinafter referred to as the disputed premises). Premises Nos. 29-B and 29-C Gariahat Road are to the adjacent north of the disputed premises belonging to the respondent No. 5. According to them the building on the disputed premises was a one-storied brick built structure till February, 1967, when they came to know that the respondent No. 5 was constructing the second and the third storey over the existing structure on the disputed premises. They alleged that the disputed premises abuts a common passage about 8' wide, and so according t...
Subrata Kumar Banerjee Vs. Dipti Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal61,77CWN944
Sen Gupta, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner Subrata Kumar Banerjee and his wife Dipti Banerjee. The husband filed the petition for dissolution against his wife on the allegation that she committed adultery with respondent No. 2. From the marriage certificate which has been produced in this case, it appears that the petitioner was married to the respondent No. 1 on the 9th of March, 1953 at the Duff Church, Calcutta, according to Christian rites. The marriage was consummated and as a result of the same, respondent No. 1 gave birth to three children. The first child of the marriage was a still born male child born on 4-2-54. The second child, a daughter Sudipta, was born on 17-1-55 and the last one the son Sudip, was born on 1-3-57.2. Upon the evidence which has been believed by the Court below and which has not been controverted before us, the husband and the wife live...
Rajputana Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Malaya Trading Agency
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal116,77CWN834
S.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This is an application for an order that the appeal bedismissed for non-prosecution, the appellant Dot having filed the paper book in time or at all. The application was made on April 25, 1973. It is not in dispute that the paper book was due to be filed on November 16, 1972, the day the Court reopened after the long vacation. On November 16, 1972 the appellant's Solicitors applied to the Deputy Registrar for extension of time to file the paper book till January 3, 1973. An order was made as prayed for. Thereafter further applications for extension of time were made on January 2, 1973 and February 26, 1973. On the last application the Deputy Registrar extended the time to file the paper book till March 31, 1973. All these applications were presumably made under Rule 21 of Chapter XXXI of the Original Side Rules.2. It appears from the record that on March 31, 1973, the appellant's Solicitors again applied in writing requesting the Deputy Registrar to extend the time...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »