Kolkata Court May 1976 Judgments
Sm. Mihirbala and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal388,80CWN731
ORDERM.M. Dutt, J. 1. In this rule the petitioner, who is admittedly the owner of the disputed land, has challenged the legality of the proceedings before the respondent No. 2, the Bhagchas Officer, Mathurapur, instituted by the respondent No. 3, Nirapada Haldar, a bargadar, under Section19-B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.2. In that proceeding it has been alleged by the respondent No. 3 that his cultivation of the disputed land has been forcibly terminated by the petitioner. He has prayed for reliefs under Section 19-B of the Act.Section 19-B is as follows:--'(1) If a person owning any land terminates or causes to be terminated the cultivation of the land by a bargadar in contravention of the provisions of this Act, then any officer specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, shall, on the application by such bargadar by order direct - (a) in a case where such land has not been cultivated, or has been cultivated by the owner or by any person on his behalf ot...
Tag this Judgment!Siemens (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC480(Cal)
S. Mukharji, J.1. An interesting point of procedure under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, falls for consideration in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is an existing company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner is a manufacturer of and dealer in electrical goods, heavy engineering machineries, etc. The petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The petitioner has also a registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into contracts with several parties including the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals, the Indian Railways, M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited, Durgapur Steel Plant, Durgapur, for the supply of the electrical goods from time to time as per orders placed by the aforesaid parties. In the said contracts, there were specifications as to import of goods from West Germany and in ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Kalachand Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-27-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ27Cal
M.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 5, 1975, made in Civil Rule No. 355(W) of 1975, by Chittatosh Mookerjee, J., whereby his Lordship was pleased to make the Rule, obtained by respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), absolute.2. In the Rule, the petitioner has contended that on or about August 3, 1944, he was appointed as a clerk in the Union Angarpathra Colliery (hereinafter referred to as the said colliery), under the Union Coal Company Ltd., respondent No. 5 herein (hereinafter referred to as the said company). The said colliery has been alleged to be a Coking Coal Mine and the said company at all material times was under the common management with Khas Junagore Colliery Company (P) Ltd., Central Junagore Coal Company (P) Ltd., New Heanagore Coal Company and the New Manbhoom Coal Company Ltd. He has further alleged that since such appointment, he duly served the said colliery and ultimately in September, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Hirendra Kumar Mitter Vs. Sudhangshu Shekhar Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal149,80CWN1015
Masud, J. 1. We delivered a judgment in this appeal on January 6, 1976 allowing the appeal, after hearing the Counsel for the appellant. On that day nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. Thereafter, the matter was mentioned by the Counsel for the respondent and the said judgment and order were recalled. The facts of the case may, briefly, be stated as follows: 2. Suit No. 69 of 1963 was filed in this Court by Himangshu Sekhar Paul against Kishori Lal Paul and others. A consent decree was passed on August 21, 1964, whereby, inter alia, a special Referee was appointed to go into the accounts between the parties. On April 1, 1966, the Special Referee allowed the plaintiff to file additional statement of facts on his oral application. On May 9, 1966 a Notice of Motion was taken by M/s. J. N. Mitter and Co., on behalf of one of the defendants to set aside the above order of the Special Referee. On August 8, 1966, A. N. Sen J. set aside the order of the Special Referee and directed a ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra Sarma and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal453,80CWN688
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is atthe instance of the referring claimant Sm. Saraswati Devi, since deceased, and it is directed against the award of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal affirming the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and rejecting the reference case.2. The premises No. 20, Ultadanga Main Road belonged to the said Sm. Saraswati Devi. On January 13, 1955, a notification under Section 43 (2) of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was published by the Board of Trustees for the improvement of Calcutta for the Street Scheme known as Scheme No. VIII-M (widening of Ultadanga Main Road between the Scheme No. V-M and Scheme No. VII-M). The owner Sm. Saraswati Devi filed objection to the proposed acquisition of the said premises. On October 20, 1955, the Act was amended by the Calcutta Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1955 and a new paragraph 1-A which modified the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was inserted after paragraph 1 of the schedule to the...
Tag this Judgment!All India Insurance Emyloyees' Assn. and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOi) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ415Cal
R.M. Dutta, J.1. The Rule nisi herein was directed against the Union of India and the different authorities of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, (hereinafter called the laid Corporation), calling upon them to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus and a writ in the nature of prohibition should not be issued against them, commanding the said respondents and each of them to act according to law, by directing the respondents to act is accordance with a settlement, dated January 24, 1974 read with an administrative instruction, dated March 29, 1974; by re-calling, rescinding and/or canceling the impugned circulars, dated September 26, 1975, February 7, 1976 and March 11, 1976, being anuexures to the petition j by not acting in any manner whatsoever on the basis of the said impugned circulars; and further, by not refusing to pay the annual cash bonus to the Class III and Class IV employees of the respondent No. 2, the employees of the said Corporation including the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Burn and Company Ltd. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal389
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and 'Nil' award passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Asansol, in L. A. Case No. 35 of 1963 started by a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act sent by the Collector on the application of the claimant Messrs. Burn and Company Limited challenging the order of the Collector refusing to pass any award for compensation in connection with a land acquisition proceeding. The claimant is the appellant before us.2. The relevant facts of this case are simple. A proceeding wag started under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of land in C. S. Plot No. 2 (Part) in Mouza Birbhanpur, P. S. Faridpur, District Burdwan for the development of industries in Durgapur area. The land in question was taken lease of by the claimant, hereinafter referred to as the Company, on diverse dates, from different co-owners of the land for a period of 999 years. During the pendency of the proceeding, the West Bengal Act XXV of 1957 came i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Electric Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1976
Reported in: [1978]112ITR246(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-I, the Tribunal has been directed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to send up a statement in respect of the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record regarding the allowance of Rs. 61,163 as wealth-tax and that accordingly the order of rectification passed by the Income-tax Officer in respect thereof was not justified in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the omission to charge interest under Section 18A(7) of the Income-tax Act could not be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in deleting the charge of Rs. 7,173.63 made by the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. The facts found or admitted as will appear from the statement of the case and the annexures ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Gupta Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC73(Cal)
Anil K. Sen, J.1. In this appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the question that falls for determination is as to whether the appellant who makes camphor cubes locally out of camphor granules and sells such cubes in the local market can be said to be a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1954). The appellant, as the proprietor of the firm M/s. S.D. Gupta & Co., carries on business in camphor cubes. He purchases camphor in granules and makes camphor cubes out of such granules with the help of a power operated machine and sells such camphor cubes in the market with distinctive brand names of 'Elephant, Moon and Arati'. Originally, he had himself registered as a dealer under Section 7 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1941). On his business turnover for the period November, 1955, to 30th June, 1958, the appellant was assessed to sales tax under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Banku Behari Dutt Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal393
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 98, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Calcutta, with all the structures standing thereon. The petitioner states that the said premises is occupied and partly used by the petitioner for his residential purpose and as partly his business purposes. On 8th January, 1974, the petitioner received a notification published in the Calcutta Gazette. The said notification which is annexure B to the petition, inter alia, states as follows: '......... Whereas it appears to the Governor that land is likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Mass Rapid Transit System and other connected works relating to the said system from Dum Dum to Tollygunge in the city of Calcutta, it is, hereby notified that piece of land comprising premises Nos. 29 and 98, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road and 1, Mohani Mohan Road, described in Block I and II in the Schedule below altogether measuring, more or less, 0.0891 hectare (0.2201 of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »