Kolkata Court December 1977 Judgments
Saidun Nessa Hoque and ors. Vs. Calcutta Vyapar Pratisthan Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal285
Ramenbra Mohan Datta, J. 1. The appeal herein has since been dismissed with costs for default of appearance of the appellant on or about 8th Sept. 1977 in the presence of the respondent. The respondent intending to proceed with the hearing of the cross objection was directed to serve on the appellant a notice of hearing and pursuant thereto the appellant appeared.2. Arguments had been advanced on a short but an interesting point arising out of the cross-objection filed by the respondent Calcutta Vyaper Pratisthan Limited. The judgment of the trial Court was delivered by A. N. Ray, J. (as he then was) on March 22 and 23, 1966 whereby the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. The claim for specific performance of the sale of a premises comprising 25 cottahs of land with a cottage standing on a portion thereon being parts of premises Nos. 3, Rusell Street and 36, Chowringhee Road in Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), was refused but the learned Judge allowed the...
Tag this Judgment!United Bank of India Ltd. Vs. A.T. Ali HussaIn and Co., a Firm and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal169,(1978)1CompLJ70(Cal),82CWN234
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff United Bank of India Limited and it arises out of 6 suit for recovery of money. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that on Jan. 14, 1957, the defendant No. 2, the Union Bank of India Limited presented to the plaintiff bank, a cheque for Rupees 5,200 bearing date Jan. 11, 1957 purported to have been drawn by the Metal Alloy Co. Private Ltd., a constituent ofthe plaintiff bank, in favour of the defendant No. 1, A. T. Alihussain & Co., and crossed 'not negotiable and account payee only'. The plaintiff bank, acting under the mistaken belief that the said cheque had in fact been duly signed by the said Metal Alloy Co., paid the said sum of Rs. 5,200 to the defendant Union Bank by debiting the C/D Account of the said constituent The signature on the said cheque and all other writings appearing thereon had, since transpired, been forged and no one on behalf of the company had signed or drawn the same. The forgery of the said chequ...
Tag this Judgment!The Institution of Engineers (India) and anr. Vs. Bishnu Pada Bag and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal296,82CWN210
G.N. Ray, J.1. This Rule is directedagainst the ex parte order No. 3 dated 6th Jan. 1977 and the ex parte order No. 7 dated 11th Jan. 1977 under Section 151 and Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil P. C. directing for issuing a writ of commission since modified by another ex parte order No. 8 dated 14th Jan. 1977 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 2 of 1977. The aforesaid Title Suit 2 of 1977 was instituted by the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 inter alia praying for leave under Order 1. Rule 8 of the Civil P. C. for a declaration that the resolutions passed in the three meetings dated Oct. 31, 1976 and Nov. 1, 1976 by the Institution of Engineers (India) were illegal, arbitrary and void and also for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to carry into effect any of the resolutions passed in the said meeting and for other ancillary reliefs.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 viz. the Institution of Engine...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Jadar Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ439
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. This Rule is directed against an order dated 9.8.76 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta, convicting the accused Under Section 12(3)(b) of the West Bengal Cattle Licensing Act, 1959. The learned Magistrate sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months, He also forfeited the four buffaloes that were seized Under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act.2. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the conviction and sentence are bad although the accused pleaded guilty as the plea of the accused was not recorded. I find from the order sheet of the learned Magistrate that the plea was actually recorded in Bengali although in the certified copy of the order the same has been omitted which has misled the learned Advocate to make such submission. The second point taken by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that in order to convict the accused Under Section 12 for violati...
Tag this Judgment!General Fibre Dealers Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1977
Reported in: [1979]116ITR40(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this matter, I had delivered judgment on 24th & 28th November, 1977, but before I could sign the judgment, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that he wanted to make some further submissions. Accordingly, I recalled the judgment and heard learned advocates for both sides on certain points.2. The General Fibre Dealers Ltd. filed their return of income under the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67 on or about 8th of August, 1966. In the said return, the said firm, which is the petitioner herein, declared an income of Rs. 9,54,582. The petitioner-company claimed set-off of the loss of Rs. 5,80,331. The ITO on or about 18th of August, 1970, assessed the total income to be Rs. 3,53,568. The tax payable was determined at Rs. 2,29,574. The petitioner-company had paid advance tax of Rs. 3,43,160. In the premises, a sum of Rs. 1,13,588 became refundable to the, petitioner. The ITO, accordingly, allowed interest on this sum under Section 214(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Jwala and anr. Vs. Lama Helem Ian Haong Lee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal247,82CWN245
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This rule, is directed against an appellate order dated July 7, 1976 whereby it was held, in reversal of the order of the learned Munsif, that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit was remanded for trial on merits 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 1971 in the court of the Fourth Munsif at Alipore for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the petitioners in this Court, and/or their men or agent from entering the suit premises viz. 13, Canal Street, P. S. Entally, Calcutta and from disturbing or interfering with the plaintiff's possession by breaking open locks of the doors of the main building therein or otherwise. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction in terms of the prayer made in the plaint and obtained an interim order.3. The petitioners on entering appearance in the suit filed a written objection to the appl...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Limited Vs. M.M.P. Lines Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal298
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint. The suit in question was filed on 25th June, 1974. The Master's Summons for the application for amendment of the plaint was taken out on 25th June, 1977. The summons was made returnable on the 4th July, 1977 and on the 4th July, 1977 directions for affidavits were obtained from the Court. The suit is by the plaintiff, I. T. C. Ltd. against seven defendants. The main defendant, however, is the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff alleged that the defendant No. 1, of which the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors and guarantors, had borrowed some money and the plaintiff had agreed to lend and advance to the defendant No. 1 the said moneys on, inter alia, the terms that they would pledge two Trawlers to the plaintiff as security for repayment of the amounts advanced. Both the trawlers were insure with the National Insurance Company Ltd. being the defendant No. 5 herein. The material fact for the present p...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Animesh Halder Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1977
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT587(Cal)
Salil Kumar Data, J.1. This rule is directed against the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay dated May 31, 1973. The relevant facts are as follows :-The petitioner arrived at Santacruz Air Port, Bombay on February 6, 1973 by flight No. 4 from London after a stay of 5 years and 18 days abroad. At the time of his arrival, he imported goods valued at Rs. 21,116/- in addition to to the goods released free under Rule 2 of the Baggage Rules 1970. The petitioner was allowed to clear goods valued at Rs. 280/- under Rule 3 of Baggage Rules, free of duty, and, goods valued at Rs. 864/- were allowed clearance free of duty under the Transfer of Residence Rules. The petitioner had a used calculating machine valued at Rs, 972/- and this was found to be in excess of his allowance. This machine could not be released as bona fide baggage under the Baggage Rules and required an I.T.C. Licence for its import. In absence of such licence, it was held, the import of the machine was m...
Tag this Judgment!Bibhuti Bhusan Chakravarti and anr. Vs. Tarun Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal302
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Bibhuti Bhusan Chakravati as Managing Director of the Superintendence Company of India Pvt. Ltd. and the Superintendence Company of India Pvt. Ltd. have instituted Suit No. 218 of 1977 on or about 1st April, 1977 in this Court against one Tarun Gupta residing at Mitralaya near Dhaneswar Temple P.O. & Dist. Dhanbad in the State of Bihar. The plaintiffs have alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 was the Managing Director of the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff No. 2. In January, 1970, the defendant was employed by the plaintiff as the Manager of Dhanbad Division of the plaintiff No. 2 at a total remuneration of Rs. 795 per month and a service agreement was executed between the plaintiff No. 2 and defendant on 9th Jan., 1970 at Calcutta. It is stated that the principal object of the agreement was to prevent the defendant from utilising the trade secrets to the advantage of the rivals of the plaintiffs to the detriment of the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Vs. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1977
Reported in: [1978]114ITR505(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This reference arises out of the assessment of business profits tax of Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, for the chargeable accounting period 1st January, 1948, to the 31st December, 1948, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta. Under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, read with Section 19 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947, the Tribunal has been directed to state a case on the following question:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in arriving at its conclusion that the sum of Rs. 10,00,000 allowable as a deduction in computing the business profit of the assessee of the relevant chargeable accounting period, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in basing the said conclusion upon some evidence only but ignoring other essential matters discussed in the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ?'2. The facts found and/or admitted in this reference are as follows : The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »