Kolkata Court July 1977 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.
Bhagwati Prasad Khaitan Vs. the Special Director, Enforcement Director ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1821
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1.In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges a notice dated the 25th September, 1975, issued to the petitioner under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.2. The petitioner is ;a director of the Hindusthan Motors Limited. He is also a Solicitor of this Court. By the said notice the petitioner was required to show cause why adjudication proceedings contemplated by Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Section 23-D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947) should not be held against the petitioner for the alleged contravention of Section 4(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, by the Hindusthan Motors Ltd. Show cause notices were also issued to the said company and other directors and some officers of the said company on the said alleged grounds. The said notice alleged that the said company had entered into a contract with the United Commercial Bank Limited for the purchase of forward ...
Taherbhoy Feeda Ally and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal361
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The six petitioners in these proceedings viz., Taherbhoy Feeda Ally, Yayahbhoy Feeda Ally, Abdullabhoy Feeda Ally, Salehbhoy Feeda Ally, Dawoodbhoy Feeda Ally and Tayebhoy Feeda Ally seek to impugn an order No. 27/S/223 of 1977 dated the 6th April 1977 passed by the competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The undisputed facts relevant to these proceedings are, inter alia, that the petitioners are owners in possession of premises Nos. 83A and 83B, Park Street (hereinafter referred to as 'the said premises'). Under an agreement in writing dated the 2nd September 1976 the petitioner agreed to sell to Favourite Small Investment Limited, the respondent No. 4 in these proceedings, the said premises for a price of Rs. 8 lakhs on, inter alia, the following terms and conditions:(a) The sale would be subject to the petitioners obtaining the necessary certificate and/or permission under the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR762(Cal)
A.N. Sen, J. 1. In this reference under Section 66(1) of the Act, the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal to this court : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in applying the second proviso to Section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act ' 2. The relevant facts have been set out by the Tribunal in the statement of the case. However, the material facts may be set out. 3. The statement relates to the assessment year 1952-53, the corresponding previous year being the calendar year 1951. The respondent-company, M/s. Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd., Calcutta, was assessed for the relevant year as the agents of a non-resident assessee, namely, M/s. Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. (in liquidation). The original assessment was made on 23rd December, 1953. The assessment was, however, reopened under Section 34(1)(b) by notice, dated 9th June, 1956, to include dividends amounting to Rs. 25,01,660 (net) deemed to have been distributed...
Bhagatram Goyal Vs. Gupta Cables Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal451
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. On the 27th of January, 1977 the plaintiff filed this suit in this Court against the defendant claiming a decree for Rs. 1,17,100/-. for interim and further interests and for other incidental and consequential reliefs. 2. The suit is by the plaintiff who alleges that he is the sole proprietor of a business and he states that he resides at Bhubaneswar in the State of Orissa and carries on business in the State of Rajasthan. The suit is against the defendant, which is a private limited company. It is alleged in the plaint that the company carries on business, inter alia, at Bhubaneswar in the State of Orissa but has its registered office at No. 3 Jadulal Mullick Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaint is based on certain monetary transactions and accounts stated. The accounts were contained in two documents in which there were the following endorsements: 'Subject to Bhubaneswar Jurisdiction.' It is apparent from the plaint that the...
M. Gulamali Abdul HussaIn and Co. Vs. Binani Properties (P) Ltd. and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal53
S.K. Datta, J.1. The respondent No. 1 Binani Properties (P) Ltd. obtained a decree for recovery of possession on 11th June, 1959 against the appellant and others in respect of the suit premises, The seid decree was affirmed on appeal on 18th April, 1969. On 10th October, 1969 a fresh application for execution of the said decree was filed by the plaintiff decree-holder and on that application Mr. Justice Ghose passed an order on 20th November, 1970 directing that the Sheriff of Calcutta would, in the mode prescribed under Order XXI Rule 35 (1) and (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure put the plaintiff respondent no. 1 in possession of the said premises. The order further provided that the plaintiff decree-holder respondent no. 1 would be at liberty to take police help, if necessary, for taking possession of the premises in execution of the said decree. The present appeal is against this order.2. It transpires from the affidavits of the parties that on the 17th September, 1970, an order wa...
income-tax Officer, D-ward and anr. Vs. Chandmull Batia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1977
Reported in: [1978]115ITR388(Cal)
Ghose J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 31st January, 1973, passed by T. K. Basu J. The facts of the case are as follows :2. One Punam Chand Batia and Padam Chand Banthia held substantial shares in Messrs. Kalinagar Khoreel Tea Co. Ltd., Bullion Tea Co. Ltd., Burdwar Tea Timber Co. Ltd., and Sarugaon Tea Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'said companies'). The said Punam Chand Batia and Padam Chand Banthia were at all material times partners of the respondent-firm, Messrs. Chandmull Batia. Although the abovenamed two persons of the respondent-firm were the registered shareholders in the abovementioned tea companies, in the balance-sheet of the respondent-firm the shares, inter alia, in the said companies were shown as stock-in-trade or assets of the said firm and moneys received from the said tea companies were shown as deposits made by the said companies in the books of the firm. The revenue sought to reopen the assessment proceedings of the firm in rega...
Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Punam Chand Banthia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR727(Cal)
Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by T. K. BASU J. on 19th January, 1973, whereby his Lordship was pleased to make a rule nisi absolute and directed issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing, inter alia, a notice dated 25th January, 1967, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as well as an order of assessment. The facts leading to the making of the said application under Article 226 by the respondent are set out hereunder.2. The respondent is an assessee and is being assessed as an individual. The respondent was duly assessed for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1966-67. On 27th January, 1967, the respondent was served with a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the appellant No. 2. The said notice was dated 25th January, 1967. In the said notice it was alleged that the appellant No. 2 had reason to believe that the respondent's income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1962-63 appea...
Basdeo Prasad Khemka Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal100,81CWN1047
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the Union of India, inter alia, for recovery of Rs. 46,712.62 as price of 3800 tons of Bhusha, interest, cost, etc. The first plaint against the same defendant for the same cause of action was filed on 14th May 1949. As the part of the cause of action arose within and part of the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction, it became necessary to obtain leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. On 22nd March 1949 the plaintiff served a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on the defendant and it was received on 19th April 1949.2. The then prevalent practice of obtaining leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was different from what it is now today. In the sense, the plaintiff through its Solicitor or Advocate had to file the plaint with the Master and pray for leave under Clause 12 and the learned Master after scrutiny of the papers on its turn would make an endorsement on the original ...
imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Controller General of Patents, D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal77
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. This appeal is out of an order passed on 7th Jan. 1977 under Section 88(3) of the Patents Act, 1970. In order to appreciate the contentions urged in this appeal, it is necessary to refer to certain facts. Patent No. 77950 was granted to the appellant Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. in respect of an invention of a catalyst which, if used, in the steam reforming of hydrocarbons achieved results which were not, according to the appellant, possible before the invention. The said invention, as the patent certificate stated, related to the catalyst suitable for use in hydrocarbons steam reforming process. In respect of the said patent, the appellant had claimed:1. A catalyst composition for use in steam reforming of hydrocarbons in the form of discrete particles comprising between 3.0% and 80% by weight of nickel calculated as nickel oxide and from 97% to 20% by weight of refractory oxide material calcul...
Daga Films Vs. Lotus Production and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal312
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J. 1. This suit w,as filed by Messrs. Daga Films, the plaintiff herein, against Messrs. Lotus Production and Mr. D. N. Mehta for (a) declaration that the document dated 7th April 1970 is void and/or voidable; (b) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the said document dated April 7, 1970 by realising any further sum from the plaintiff in respect of the film 'Juari'; (c) decree for Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of damages and (d) injunction, Receiver cost and other consequential reliefs.2. The defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit nor filed any written statement The defendant No. 2 Mr. D. N. Mehta filed a written statement and also contested the suit. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff carried on business in partnership as distributor of cinematographic films and the defendant No. 1 carried on business of motion pictures production at Ranjit Studio, Dadar, Bombay. The defendant No. 1 as such producer was producing a motion picture in H...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »