Kolkata Court July 1976 Judgments
Hari Charan Pal Vs. Siddheswar Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal26,81CWN78
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. This is an appeal against a judgment of affirmance. The plaintiff instituted the connected suit on July 5, 1969 under Section 36 of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940 read with Section 37-A and Section 38. The claim was for a decree reopening the transaction effected by the sale deed of February 5, 1951 and the agreement of even date treating it as a mortgage by conditional sale and also for reopening the rent decree passed against him in S. C. Suit No. 34 of 1951 as also the decree for ejectment in Title Suit No. 252 of 1960 and for other ancillary and incidental reliefs.2. The plaintiff appellant's case is that he obtained from the defendant a loan of Rs. 300/- by mortgaging his bastu land measuring 2 1/2 bighas of C. S. Plot 1607, Mouja Balagarh within Hooghly-Chin-surah Municipality. To avoid the provisions of the said Act, at the instance of the defendant respondent, the plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the said prope...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Trading Co. Vs. Prafulla Kumar Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal94
Janah, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits for ejectment which were instituted by the respondents against the appellant for the latter's eviction from two tenancies at No. 72, Bai-thakhana Road. The plaintiff-respondents alleged that the defendant-appellant held one residential tenancy in respect of 3 rooms at 72, Baithakhana Roard under the plaintiffs at a rental of Rs. 21/- per month according to Bengali calendar. The defendant appellant also held anothertenancy under the plaintiff-respondents at the aforesaid premises No. 72, Baithakhana Road in respect of a shop room at a rental of Rs. 32/- per month according to Bengali calendar. Ejectment suit No. 44 out of which F. A. 1101 arises was instituted in respect of the residential tenancy and Ejectment Suit No. 45 out of which F. A. 1102 arises was instituted in respect of the shop room. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had purchased the structure at 72, Baithakhana Road in which the disputed tenancies were situate, from th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vasudeva Rao Vs. Jadu Nandan Trivedi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal142
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. The defendant, K. Vasudev Rao, has come up with the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the decision arrived at in the first appeal before this Court affirming the judgment and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent Jadu Nandan Trivedi in the original suit started in the City Civil Court at Calcutta.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of the premises No. 25A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta and that the defendant was a monthly tenant under him in respect of a room on the ground floor of the said premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 70/- payable according to the English Calendar. The plaintiff's allegation is that he reasonably requires the suit room for his own use and occupation because it is necessary for the use of his eldest son. Gaya Prosad Trivedi, a member of his family as his chamber in connexion with his legal practice. It has been stated that Gaya Prosad is in urgent need of a room on the ground floor to re...
Tag this Judgment!Shalimar Paints Vs. 8th Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ382Cal
R.M. Dutta, J.1. The petitioner-company was incorporated in 1902. Formerly it was being managed by their managing agents Messrs. Turner Morrison & Co. and during that time the company was having its registered office at the office of the said managing agents at No. 6, Lyons Range, Calcutta. The company also had its factory at Goabaria in Howrah. The petitioner at that time was a licensee under the said managing agents at No. 6, Lyons Range. Since the termination of the managing agency agreement in 1963 the petitioner vacated the said office accommodation sometime in February, 1963 and on 1st March, 1963 the company shifted its entire business or undertaking from No. 6, Lyons Range, Calcutta to its head office at Goabaria in Howrah. The sales division of the company was shifted to No. 13, Cambc Street, Calcutta.2. At all material time and even prior to the petitioner-company's shifting its sales office to Camac Street, Calcutta, the respondent Ananga Mohan Ash was an employee at the off...
Tag this Judgment!Balsukh Refractories and Ceramics Ltd. Vs. Hindusthan Steel Ltd. and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal20
Ray, J. 1. This revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 31 read with Section 33 and Section 9 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 and it is directed against order No. 21 dated December 6, 1972 passed in Misc. Case No. 50 of 1972 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Asansol.2. The petitioner Company carried on business as manufacturers of and dealers in fireclay bricks and refractory goods in mouja Salanpur P. S. Salanpur, Sub-Division Asansol, District Burdwan, The opposite party No. 1 is a fully owned Government Company in public sector carrying on business as manufacturers of and dealers in Iron and Steel at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg, Madhya Pradesh. Sometime in 1966 the opposite party No. 1 sent a letter No. Expm/BM/Pur -- 17 (1)/66 to the petitioner inviting tenders for supply of fireclay bricks and refractory goods of certain specifications to the opposite party No. 1. On Feb...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Mir Fakir Mohammad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal29
R. Bhattacharya, J. 1. The defendant, the State of West Bengal, has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and the decree passed by a Subordinate Judge, Alipore affirming those of the Munsif of the Additional Court at Sealdah in a suit brought by the respondent Mir Fakir Mohammad. The suit was brought for a declaration that the suit lands were orchards and that he was entitled to retain the same under the provision of theWest Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 amongst other reliefs. The plaintiff got the decree against the State of West Bengal and in the first appeal taken by the State, the appellant was unsuccessful. 2. The allegation of the plaintiff, in short, is that he is in possession of agricultural lands. The draft record of the recent revisional settlement prepared by the State Government was on the basis of the cadestral survey records published long ago showing the lands as agricultural. After the publication of the said C. S. records, the plaintiff converted so...
Tag this Judgment!Panama Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: [1978]113ITR290(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This reference is at the instance of Messrs. Panama Private Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee. The question called for from the Tribunal under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 23A of the Income-tax Act were applicable for the year '2. The matter arises out of an order passed by the Income-tax Officer under Section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the assessment year 1961-62, the relevant previous year ending on 30th September, 1960. It is found that in the said assessment year the distributable surplus available to the assessee within the meaning of Section 23A was Rs. 2,45,793. It is further found that dividend aggregating to Rs. 1,06,950 has been distributed and this amount was less than the statutory percentage and the dividend which ought to have been distributed was Rs. 1,59,765. Accordingly, the Income-...
Tag this Judgment!Suburban Industrial Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1976
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT155(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not refunding to him the excise duty charged by them on the bellowers manufactured by the petitioner in his factory.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of electrical fans and blowers with and without electrical device. The blowers without any electrical device were not liable to excise duty under Item 33 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, till June 30, 1971, when the said item was amended. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner Item 33, as it stood before the amendment, may be reproduced as follows : - '33. ELECTRICAL FANS, including air circulators but excluding those which are designed for use in an industrial system as parts indispensable for its operation and have been given for that purpose some special shape or quality which would not be essential for their use for any other purpose, and parts of such electrical fans etc.'After amendment Item 33 reads as fol...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Nath Nayek Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ154
ORDERA.N. Banerjee, J.1. This Rule is for setting aside an order dated 3-12-75 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly and also for quashing of the proceeding pending before him. It appears that on 25-6-74 a Food Inspector and Sanitary Inspector of Arambag Public Health Circle, District Hooghly, took from the premises, allegedly belonging to the petitioner, at Dihalpara a sample of wheat Atta for the purported analysis under the provision of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Public Analyst analysed the sample sent to him on September 5, 1974 and made a report to the Food Inspector that the sample was adulterated. The copy of that report was received immediately thereafter by the Food Inspector, Arambag but no copy of it was given to the petitioner till November 10, 1975. It further appears that on the receipt of the said report of the Public Analyst the District Health Officer, Hooghly filed a complaint dated 26-12-74 before the Sub-Divisional...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotish Chandra Rakhit Vs. Smt. Parbati Bala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Cal235,81CWN357
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This rule has been obtained against the appellate order dismissing the appeal filed by the decree-holder against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore allowing an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the C. P. C. setting aside the sale in execution of the decree. This decree arises out of a suit for partition and it appears that the title of the parties was declared in eight annas share in respect of the suit properties. The value of the portion allotted by the pleader commissioner to the judgment-debtor, the opposite party before me under the decree is Rs. 8,392/-. It appears that the decree-holder started a title execution case No. 22 of 1970 in respect of the said decree for getting possession of his allotment as also for realisation of the costs of the suit which, I am told, amounts to Rs. 700/-. In this case it appears that the sale proclamation was served on the judgment-debtor on 29-4-1971 and after the sale proclam...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »