Kolkata Court June 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.
Siemens India Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1976
Reported in: [1978]41STC75(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner has registered office at 134A, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Bombay. The petitioner is a registered dealer in West Bengal under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The principals of the petitioner are Messrs. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft situated at Muenchen in West Germany. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner entered into contracts with the Indian Railways, Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant and various other parties to supply materials from time to time as per orders placed by the aforesaid parties to the petitioner. So far as the railways are concerned, the petitioner contends that under the terms of the contract, the railways were obliged to procure specific import licences against goods contracted for and under the terms of the contract, goods were to be manufactured in foreign country as per speci...
Agarwal Hardware Industries Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ192Cal
Anil K. Sen, J.1. In this appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in the revisional application in the alternative, the appellant challenges an order dated April 30, 1971, possed by the Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal, in Case No. 53 of 1971. By the said order the said Court dismissed the appellant's application for an interim stay pending the disposal of the proceedings initiated before the said Court under Section 75 of the said Act or further proceedings of a certificate proceeding. Such application of the appellant was dismissed by the said Court not on merits but on a view that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. This appeal thus involves a short but an important question of law as to whether an Employees' Insurance Court constituted under Section 74 of the said Act and adjudicating a dispute under Chapter VI thereof has any jurisdiction to entertain any applicatio...
Sm. Ajita Debi Vs. Musst. Hossenara Begum and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal59
Masud, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against a judgment and order of A. K Sarkar J. dated September 24, 1973,whereby, the learned Judge refused to record the terms of settlement, filed in suit No. 276 of 1971. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. 2. Two brothers Nawab Ali Hyder Khan and Ali Asgar Khan were the joint owners of premises No. 8/2, Palm Avenue, Calcutta. On or about March 15, 1958 they executed an agreement for sale of the said premises with one Sailaja Ranjan Chaki, respondent No. 6, on terms and conditions, set out in the agreement. Prior to the said date of agreement, Title Suit No. 284 of 1951 was pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Alipore, between one Indranath Nandy, the Mortgagee, and the said two brothers, the mortgagors in respect of a mortgage deed dated June 29, 1944. Ali Hyder Khan died intestate in 1963 leaving behind him Musst. Hossenara Begum, Ali Safdar Khan, Ali Sarwar Khan, Ali Dewar Khan and Mst. Sayedunessa Begum, the respondents No...
Patai Sheikh and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal427,(1976)2CompLJ1(Cal),80CWN766
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. On an application under Article 226 of the Constitution Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sen delivered judgment on the 1st March, 1973. The appellants before Us applied for a certified copy of the judgment on 20th March, 1973. Due to the delay in applying for certified, copy they lost 19 days.2. The certified copy was ready for delivery on the 27th April, 1973, at 4.80 p. m. The appellants took delivery of the certified copy on April 30, 1973. The appeal was filed on June 11, 1973. The Stamp Reporter did not accept the Memorandum of Appeal on the ground that it was presented 33 days after the expiry of the period of limitation. The appellants thereafter presented an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the 13th June, 1973, whereupon Civil Rule No. 2024 (M) of 1973 was issued. The Rule has now come up for hearing.3. Mr. Sankardas Banerjee appearing for the appellants contends that the appellants lost 19 days between the 1st March, 1973 and the 20th Marc...
Gopal Chand Sen Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1976
Reported in: 81CWN253,[1977]109ITR820(Cal)
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent involves a short question as to whether the assessee's share of income from a firm, the business whereof was being carried on by the receivers appointed by a court and the income whereof had been assessed in the hands of the receivers, can be added to the assessee's personal income for computation of his total income under Section 16(l)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the purpose of determining the rate of taxation. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 20, 1963, passed by D. Basu J. in Civil Rule No. 3690 of 1960 [Gopal Chandra Sen v. Income-fax Officer : [1963]50ITR87(Cal) ] dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant. It would be necessary to refer to the facts in brief which are set out hereunder.2. Three persons, Manmatha Nath Sen, Bholanath Sen and Pramatha Nath Sen, carried on a business in the name and style of ' Sen Brothers and Company'. Admittedly, each o...
Anand Rice and Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR372(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of M/s. Anand Rice & Oil Mills, Calcutta, the assessee, the Tribunal has been directed to refer to this court the following question :'Whether the sustenance of the addition of Rs. 55,000 was based upon conjectures, suspicions and surmises and on a failure to consider the relevant material on record ?'2. The facts found or admitted as appearing from the statement of the case and the annexures thereto are shortly as follows :In the assessment year in question, i.e., 1960-61, the relevant previous year being from 22nd October, 1958, to 10th October, 1959, the assessee had owned and run a rice mill at Bolpuv in the district of Birbhum. In that year the assessee purchased paddy from local suppliers, viz , 'byaparis' and also from the cultivators. In the assessment for the said assessment year the Income-tax Officer noted that the purchases of paddy were supported only by the assessee's...
Murarka Paint and Varnish Work Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ40Cal
ORDERSabyasachi Mukherjee, J.1. The Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which is now known as the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952, was made applicable to the petitioners' head office in or about June, 1962. From 6th July, 1962, the said Act was made applicable to the petitioner's factory. From 13th July, 1962, the petitioner No. 1 which is a company paid all provident fund dues but there was some delay in making the payments on certain occasions. During this period the Provident Fund Inspector visited the petitioners' establishment on several occasions. On or about the 12th August, 1968, a copy of the report of the Provident Fund Inspector dated the 31st July, 1968 was received by the petitioner No. 1 in which the petitioner was threatened with legal action and imposition of damages under Section 14B if the petitioner failed to pay off Provident Fund dues. It was also mentioned that if the payments were made Immediately it might not be necessary for the Prov...
Ram Kissen Shaw and anr. Vs. Sm. Chandravati Shaw and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1797
Sudhamay Basu, J.1. This rule is for quashing the proceedings in Case No. C/189 of 1975 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.2. It appears that on the 26th of April, 1972, a complaint, being No. C-275 of 1972, was filed by Opposite Party, Chandrawati Shaw before the then learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, against the present petitioners and another Malati Shaw, for offences under Section 494/109, Indian Penal Code and Section 494, Indian Penal Code. On the 6th of May, 1972, the complainant, Chandrawati Shaw, also filed a Matrimonial Suit, being Suit No, 71 of 1972, against Hari Ram Shaw and Malati Shaw and the said suit is still pending. On the 16th of February, 1973, upon a petition filed by the Malati Shaw and Ramkissen Shaw a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Borooah and Chanda, JJ., quashed the said proceedings in C-275 of 1972 in Criminal Revision No. 700 of 1972. The other accused, Hari Ram Shaw, moved this Court an...
The State Vs. Bikash Ch. Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1800
H.N. Sen, J.1. This is a reference under Section 395(2) Cr. P.C. by Sri S. C, Mazumdar, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in connection with G. R. Case No. 123/1974.2. The facts leading to the reference of the case may be, briefly stated, as follows:The aforesaid G. R. Case was started on a Police Report in which ultimately charge-sheet was submitted against the accused under Sections 420, 467/471, I.P.C. on 6-2-1974. It was pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate for committal enquiry on l-4-1974, the date of commencement of the new Code. Following the provisions laid down in the proviso to the Section 484(2)(a) of the new Code the case was committed to the City Sessions Court by order dated 22-4-1974. The learned Judge, City Sessions Court, however, referred back the case to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 228(1), Criminal Procedure Code after framing charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,...
Lalit Mohun Dutta Vs. Basudeb Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Cal430,80CWN774
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule was obtained against the judgment and order of the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, dated June 12, 1974. By that order the defendants' application under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in modification of the order passed by the trial Judge. The relevant facts are as follows:The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- stated to be the unpaid consideration for the sale of his business to the defendants who are his sons. The plaintiff also included in the suit a claim of a sum of Rs. 2,450/- against the defendants, as the monthly payment of Rs. 50/- due from March 14, 1969 to March, 1971, for 24 months and 15 days on the basis of the two written agreements executed by each of the defendants on March 14, 1969. By these agreements each of the defendants agreed to pay to their father, the plaintiff, during his lifetime by way of pocket expen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »