Kolkata Court February 1976 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.
Hara Sankar Chatterjee Vs. Bela Rani Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1867
ORDERA.N. Banerjee, J.1. This Rule was obtained against an order dated 5-7-75 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur in an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the said order the petitioner's prayer for stay of the proceeding of the said case till the disposal of a case under Section 494, I.P.C. was rejected. It appears that on 8-8-74 the opposite party filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner second party claiming a maintenance of Rs. 300 per month for herself and two minor daughters. It was alleged in the said petition that the second party petitioner had married again and a case under Section 494/109, I.P.C. has been started against him and others in the Magistrate's court at Durgapur being case No. 582 of 1973 and it is pending. It was also alleged that the second party petitioner had neglected and refused to give maintenance to the opposite party and the tw...
Sitaram Sree Gopal Vs. Certificate Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC124(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is a certificate filed under Section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. In view of the fact that several contentions were urged in respect of the said certificate it is relevant to refer to the said certificate, which is as follows :'Certificate of public demands(See Sections 4 and 5)Certificate No. 190 STCR 68-69.Filed in the Office of Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas._________________________________________________________Name and address of State of West Bengalcertificate-holder_________________________________________________________Amount of the public demand Rs. P. Period(including interest), if any, Year endedand including the fee paid 15th Kartickunder Section 5, sub-section 14,361.93 bodi 2020(2), ifany for which thiscertificate is signed andperiod for which such demandis due._______________________________________________________Name and address...
indra Narayan Laik and anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC230(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order passed under Section 17 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The impugned order was passed on 4th May, 1968. The petitioners also challenge a notice of assessment dated 17th June, 1969, fixing a date and time for producing evidence for assessment under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. It is the case of the petitioners that at all material times the petitioners used to carry on business as owners of Bhagran Colliery at village Bhagran, P. S. Salanpur, District Burdwan, along with two others, namely, Narayan Chandra Laik, since deceased and Sujit Kumar Laik. On 29th March, 1963, petitioner No. 1 and the deceased, Narayan Chandra Laik, father of petitioner No. 2, obtained registration certificate under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, from the Commercial Tax Officer, Asansol Charge. On 6th April, 1968, the aforesaid Ajit Kumar Laik and Sujit Kumar Laik reti...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Shri Vijay Chemical and Celluloid Works Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal209
ORDER1. In the Rule and the application, which arise out of two appeals preferred on behalf of the Union of India beyond the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed by Section 8 (2) (a) of the City Civil Court Act, 1953, the principal question that arises for consideration is whether Section 8 (2) (a) is ultra vires Article 254 of the Constitution.2. It appears that the said two appeals arise out of two orders, both passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court. By one order be refused to set aside the award of the Arbitrator under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and by the other he set aside another award and remitted the matter to the Arbitrator. Section 8 (2) (a) of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 provides that the period of limitation for en appeal from a decree or order of the City Civil Court shall be thirty days from the date of such decree or order. The Union of India has, however, preferred the said two appeals beyond 30 days. The memoranda of appeals were re...
Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, J-ward and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1976
Reported in: [1979]118ITR946(Cal)
Sabyasaciii Mukharji, J. 1. The subject-matter of challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is the notice dated 9th July, 1973, issued under Section 154/155 of the I.T. Act, 1961, In order to appreciatethe question involved in this application it would be necessary to refer to certain facts. The petitioner is a public limited company. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium utensils and articles. One of the main businesses of the petitioner, according to the petitioner, consisted of export of aluminium utensils and articles and goods outside India. The petitioner is an exporter of aluminium goods and articles to countries outside India. By export of the said aluminium articles and goods the petitioner earned what is known as import entitlement. The petitioner sold the said import entitlement. I am concerned in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution with the question relating to the assessment year 1965-66....
Jitendra Mohan Saha Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1592
Anil Kumar Sen, J.1. The detenu Sricharan Saha was put to preventive detention by the District Magistrate, West Dinajpur in exercise of his powers under Section 3 (1) (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) under an order dated July 6, 1975. He was so detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Detention rests on a ground which, in our opinion, is quite germane to the object of detention but it will not be necessary for us to refer to the said ground as the impugned detention fails on the failure of the detaining authority to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 8 of the Act which invalidates the detention. It is the validity of such detention which is the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule obtained by the detenu/petitioner on a writ petition.2. The Rule is being contested by the respondents and Mr. Basu, the l...
Sarbeswar Panda and ors. Vs. Bibhabasu Panda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal288,82CWN28
B.C. Ray, J. 1. This revisional application under Section 115, C. P. C. is directed against the order No. 105 passed on December 3, 1970 in Title Suit No. 53 of 1962 and it arises out of an application by the defendants Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 9 praying for directing the Commissioner for partition and separate allotment of their 1/4th share in respect of the suit property. 2. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 as plaintiffs instituted the above suit for partition of their 4/5th share by metes and bounds out of l/4th share of Rameswar Panda alleging inter alia that the suit property originally belonged to one Tara Prosad Panda, a Hindu governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law who died leaving four sons namely Moheswar, Sarbeswar, Rameswar and Satyeswar each having l/4th share in the suit property. In the said suit all the other co-sharers have been impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 to 14 and the State of West Bengal has been impleaded as defendant No. 15. The defendant No. 15 alone contested the ...
Sudhir Kumar Paul Vs. Sm. Indu Prova Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal274
S.K. Bhattacharyya, J. 1. This appeal by the tenant defendant No. 1 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the decision of Gupta, J. affirming the decision of the Courts below, whereby the plaintiff respondent's suit for eviction of the defendant appellant from a portion of the disputed premises was decreed. 2. The suit was initially instituted against the present appellant and four others for eviction from the suit premiseson the ground of default in the payment of rent. The trial Court decreed the suit against the present appellant holding him to be the tenant in respect of the suit premises and dismissed the suit against the other defendants on the ground that they were unnecessary parties. Against the said decision, the defendant went up in appeal to the first appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, 8th Court, Alipore by his judgment and decree dated September 26, 1958. Both Courts found the appellant to be a defaulter in the matter...
Shethia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax O ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC246(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is Messrs. Shethia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Limited. It is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The petitioner was the owner of several coal mines. In this application the petitioner is challenging an order of assessment dated 16th January, 1974, under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.2. The period relevant for the said assessment was 1st April, 1972, to 30th January, 1973.3. It is indisputable in this case that the petitioner had carried on business during the relevant period under assessment. On 30th January, 1973, the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance was issued taking over the management of coal mines with effect from 31st March, 1973. Thereafter on 31st March, 1973, the Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973, came into effect. Sub-section (1) of S...
Hukumchand Sugar Mills Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ285Cal
ORDERSabyasachi Mukherji, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in this application is the order dated 4th April, 1975 passed by Appellate Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and West Bengal Gratuity Rules, 1973. The petitioner carries on business of manufacture and sale of jute and jute goods. For the aforesaid purpose the petitioner owns and operates a factory at Hazinagar in the district of 24 Par ganas, West Bengal. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a tripartite settlement on the 7th of May, 1972, whereunder the wages and deafness allowances of the workmen in all jute mills in West Bengal including the workmen of the petitioner's jute mill had been fixed on monthly basis. The petitioner further states that only a section of workmen were paid their wages monthly on the basis of wages per month described in the settlement and other workmen for their own convenience were paid wages every week on the earnings of a full week based on monthly wages ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »