Kolkata Court June 1977 Judgments
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Hindusthan Construction Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC112(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the sales tax authorities and it is directed against the judgment of D. Pal, J., whereby the rule nisi obtained by respondent No. 1, M/s. Hindusthan Construction Co. Ltd., was made absolute.2. Respondent No. 1 carries on the business of engineers and contractors. It is also an assessee under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Respondent No. 5, the Corporation of Calcutta, invited tenders for the completion of Dry Water Flow Channel for 'Dr. Dey's Kulti Outfall Scheme' for construction of channels. Respondent No. 1 submitted tenders which were accepted by respondent No. 5. A copy of one of such tenders has been annexed to the writ petition and marked with the letter A. The contracts included construction works and also manufacture of bricks. There was a further agreement between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 5 to this effect that if sales tax was payable on the transaction entered into by them, the same would be realised by ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyesh Chandra Banerjee Vs. Sm. Rani Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal509
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The property which is the subject-matter of this partition suit is premises No. 9, Gopi Mohon Dutta Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). It is alleged in the plaint that one Rajendra Lal Banerjee, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga purchased the said premises in the benami of his wife Khanta Bala. Rajendra Lal died intestate on or about the 3rd November, 1936 leaving him surviving Khanta Bala his sole widow, his three sons Suresh Chandra, Ramesh Chandra and Satyesh Chandra and his daughter Nirmala Chakravarti.2. Khanta Bala died on the 28th December, 1953 intestate and leaving her surviving her children the said Suresh, Ramesh and Satyesh and Nirmala,3. Suresh died intestate in or about 20th October, 1959 leaving him surviving his sole widow and his eleven children as his heirs, heiresses and legal representatives.4. Ramesh, died intestate and unmarried on or about the 28th January, 1972 leaving Satyesh and Nirmala as his heir and he...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Dhar Pvt. Limited Vs. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal379
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts which are not in dispute in these proceedings may shortly be stated as follows :--On or about the 18th Oct. 1974, the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority incorporated under the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1972, the respondent No. 1 herein, invited public tenders for construction of all civil works and supply and erection of mechanical and electrical equipments for a water treatment plant of 273 MLD capacity at Garden Reach. It was intimated that tenders should be submitted between the 11th November and the 6th Dec., 1974 and the 'tender papers' containing, inter alia, the notice of invitation, specifications and other terms and conditions in detail would be available for inspection after the llth Nov., 1974 and also for purchase at a price of Rs. 700 per set. It was declared that no one would be permitted to submit a tender who had not successfully completed and commissioned an integrated water treatment plant of the min...
Tag this Judgment!Durgamata Oil Mill and anr. Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ222
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. The appellants Durgamata Oil Mill, hereinafter referred to as the Firm and Kishori Mohan Roy have been convicted Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate vested with first class powers. The appellant No. 2. Kishori Mohan Roy, has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The appellant No. 1 the Fim, has not been sentenced for the conviction. 2. To be brief, the prosecution case was that on 24-12-68 at about 2 P.M. the Food Inspector visited the shop, godown and the Mill of Durgamata Oil Mill at 243, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta. The accused Kishori Mohan was found present there as the seller and person in charge of the said Firm. The Food Inspector disclosed his identity and expressed his intention to take sample fr...
Tag this Judgment!Badrunnessa Khatoon Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1977
Reported in: 82CWN477,[1980]123ITR870(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Nawab Musharaff Hussain had considerable properties. He died in 1966. He died leaving behind him two daughters, namely, the petitioner herein and one Kamrunnessa Khatoon. The said Kamrunnessa Khatoonhad died in 1976. According to the petitioner the said Nawab Musharaff Hussain did not leave any property or asset at the time of his death. The wife of Nawab Hussain, Begum Faizunnessa Khatoon, had died in 1962. But the case of the revenue authority is that there was an association of persons consisting of Begum Faizunnessa Khatoon, Nawabjadi Kamrunnessa Khatoon, Nawabjadi Badrunnessa Khatoon, the present petitioner herein, and Nawab Mushraff Hussain. This association of persons, according to the revenue, was assessed to tax for several years. Indeed, they were assessed to tax for 1952-53, 1961-62, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1962-63 and 1966-67. I am, however, not concerned in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution with any attempt for rec...
Tag this Judgment!Manindra Narayan Bose Vs. District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, Alipore
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal197
ORDERM.N. Roy, J.1. The petitioner, who is a registered Clerk of a learned lawyer, has challenged an order dated Aug. 8, 1971, made in a proceeding under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), by the learned District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, whereby he has been declared to be a 'Tout' within the meaning of the said Act.2. Admittedly, the petitioner was originally attached to one Sri Bhaba Ranjan Sur, a learned lawyer practising in the Barrackpore Court, as his registered Clerk. Thereafter, on the recommendations of the said Sri Sur, he was appointed as a registered Clerk under Sri Joy Narayan Bhattacherjee, a learned Advocate, practising at the Alipore Judge's Court. He has stated that all throughout, he has not only served the cause of his master but also that of their clients sincerely, honestly and with due diligence. He has averred that he has a social status and he is instrumental in having his master to build up good practice. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pannalal Gupta Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal382
ORDERT.K. Basu, J. 1. In this application the petitioner Pannalal Gupta challenges an order whereby the Deputy Commissioner of Police acting on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, has refused to grant police licence under Section 39 of the Police Act, 1866, in respect of a boarding house belonging to the petitioner and situated at 4, Sudder Street, Calcutta. 2. In the petition the petitioner has specifically challenged the order as being arbitrary and has also stated that the respondent has failed to apply his mind on the question of grant of licence of the petitioner in the application. 3. In spite of such specific challenges being thrown, the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who had passed the impugned order, does not disclose any reason which impelled him to refuse the licence in the instant case. There is in the affidavit a statement in which he craves reference to certain records. No records have been however produced before me at the...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal37
Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed by Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. on the 15th Nov. 1973. By his order the learned Judge dismissed, for reasons recorded in the judgment, the application made, by the appellant for setting aside an award dated the 28th June, 1971 and also for a declaration that the order dated the 21st Feb. 1961 is invalid, without jurisdiction and of no effect.2. The facts of the case have been fully and correctly set out in the judgment of the learned trial Judge. The facts material for the purpose of the appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant is a building contractor and entered into an agreement dated the 11th April, 1962 with the Union of India for various construction works in and/or of the railway station building at Durgapur. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause.The relevant portion of the said clause reads as follows:'Clause 63 (3) (a) Arbitration. Matters in question, dispute or difference to be arbitrated upon sh...
Tag this Judgment!Loken Bose Vs. Sm. Ashima Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal318,81CWN948
ORDERM.M. Dutt, J. 1. This Rule is at the instance of the tenant-defendant in a suit for ejectment and it is directed against an order of the learned Munsif dismissing his application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil P. C. In the said application, the defendant prayed for a temporary mandatory injunction, directing the plaintiff landlord to restore water supply to the first floor of premises No. 4/1. Russa Road, South First Lane, Jadabpur, Calcutta. The learned Munsif dismissed the said application of the defendant on the ground that in view of Section 34 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the application was not maintainable. In other words, the learned Munsif took the view that in a suit for ejectment the court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for the grant of relief in respect of matters as provided for in Section 34 of the Act 2. Under Section 34, the Controller has beenauthorised to grant relief to the tenant for the making of repairs and...
Tag this Judgment!The Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. Vs. the Registrar of Trade Mark ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal413,81CWN885
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This isan appeal from the judgment and order of P. B. Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) dated May 24, 27 and 28, 1968 in an appeal under Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to an the said Act). By that judgment the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated March 26, 1968 rejecting the application for registration of a trade mark filed by the Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. in Part A of the Register or alternatively in Part B of the Register, was affirmed. The trade mark for registration is a label, used as wrapper of packets of cigarettes bearing the device of snow clad hills in outline with the word 'Simla' written prominently in various panels of the label with small inscription that the content is 'a product' of the applicant company. The application had been made for registration of the trade mark in class 34 in respect of manufactured tobacco. In course of hearing of this appeal, an application has be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »