Kolkata Court April 1974 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.
Goberdhan Polisy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT228(Cal)
S. Mukheji, J.1. The petitioner, according to the Central Excise authorities, had manufactured 27.146 MT of aluminium ingots out of the aluminium dress received from the Aluminium Company of India, Belur and Aluminium Corporation of India, Asansol, and had removed the same from the factory without payment of the Central Excise duty leviable daring the period from 17th July, 1963 to 31st December, 1964. It is undisputed that under item 27 of the schedule to the relevant Tariff of Central Excise Act and Rules, aluminium is dutiable. A demand for Rs. 9772.56 P. was raised under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the 16th February, 1966 for removal of the aforesaid ingots without payment of the Central Excise duty leviable thereon. There was an objection filed and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise came to the conclusion that the demand should be confirmed and the demand should be deemed to have been issued under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. There was an a...
Harnath Malhotra and anr. Vs. Dhanoo Devi Agarwala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal98
A.K. Sinha, J.1. These two second appeals are preferred by two separate tenants against a common appellate judgment and decree for ejectment from the disputed premises, briefly in the following circumstances :Two separate suits were filed by the respondent as owner against her tenants H. N. Malhotra and H. P. Goenka for their ejectment from premises No. 1, Lower Rowdon Street, a two-storied building. Malhotra occupying ground floor and Goenka occupying the first floor. The premises had out-houses and garages etc. which were also occupied by both the tenants separately. Shortly put, the respondent's case is that she purchased the premises on October 15. 1960 and the appellants who were in occupation of the ground floor and first floor respectively continued as monthly tenants since her purchase. The ground of ejectment is reasonable requirement for the respondent's own use and occupation as she lives in the third floor of a rented premises which is too insufficient and inadequate for ac...
Khusal Chand Sadani Vs. Balkissen Mohta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Cal169
ORDERSudhamay Basu, J.1. This is a petition by one Khusal Chand Sadani residing at No. 26, Shib Thekur Lane. Calcutta-7 for adjudication of one Balkissen Mohta residing at No. 23, Kali Krishna Tagore Street as an insolvent. The petitioner's case is that the said Balkissen Mohta stood guarantee for due payment of a sum of Rupees 12,542/- interest and cost when an order by consent was made by the Company Court in petition No. 183 of 1970 filed by this petitioner in the matter of Belur Glass Works Limited. The said Belur Glass Works Limited failed to pay in terms of the said order and went into liquidation. Thereafter the petitioner proceeded against the said surety Balkissen Mohta for realisation of the sum and an order of attachment was passed by the Company Court on the 12th December, 1972 when the petitioner applied for execution. Pursuant to the order the right title and interest of Balkissen Mohta in his undivided one third share in premises No. 23, Kali Krishna Tagore Street was at...
M/S. Jyoti Paper Industries, Keshab Bag, 114, Prince Street, Bombay-2 ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1974
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Cal)301
Sabyasachi Mukharjee, J. - The petitioner applied for registration under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The petitioner declared in the application in forms IA and IC that the petitioner was a reseller of 'processed paper and processed board'. The Commercial Tax Officer by his order dated the 16th August, 1973 rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner dealt with articles which were notified commodities under the West Bengal (Sales Tax) Act, 1954 and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. From the aforesaid order there was an application for revision and by the order dated the 22nd of December, 1973 the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes affirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer and rejected the petitioners application. Thereupon, there was a further revisional application before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, and by the order dated the 23rd ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›