Kolkata Court August 1977 Judgments
Mohanlal Gangully and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal12,82CWN411
ORDERSudhamay Basu, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the six petitioners for cancellation and recall of some orders and notifications which are annexures B and C to the petition.2. The petitioners carry on trade in timber and forest-produce and operate 100 boats of different length, breadth and depth and ply them in the canals and rivers of the State of West Bengal. Principally, it is alleged, they carry timber and other forest-produce to and from the reserved and protected forests of Sunderbans in 24-Parganas. In exercise of powers conferred under the Indian Forest Act, 1&27 and in particular Sections 32 and 41 rules have been framed for the control of transit of timber and other forest produce which are known as the West Bengal Forest Produce TransitRules, 1956. Rule 9 provides that no forest produce shall be brought to, or removed from, any depot in the Sunder-ban Forest Division except in a boat which has been registered by an Officer-in-Charge of a Forest Revenue or Checking Station...
Tag this Judgment!Bhudhar Meta Vs. J.L.R.O., Nanoor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal405
ORDERM.N. Roy, J.1. The petitioner, who claims to be a landless person and a settlee in respect of 53 decimals of land, moved and obtained this Rule against the purported action of the respondents to have those lands settled with respondent No. 4, - Sk. Tinkori, without duly and lawfully cancelling his settlement.2. It has been contended by the petitioner that on such settlement as aforesaid, he duly acted and entered into pos-session of the lands in question and is possessing them as such settlee from the date of settlement. For the purpose of establishing the fact of such settlement and his possession, the petitioner has made reference to the rent receipts, which have been granted to him up to 1379 B. S.3. It has been alleged by him that all of a sudden he was informed that the lands so possessed by him have been settled with the respondent No. 4, even in spite of the aforesaid fact of his possession. It may be mentioned that the petitioner has also contended that in terms of Rule 20...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR550(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of an assessment of super profits tax of the applicant, Orient Paper Mills Ltd., in the assessment year 1963-64. The corresponding previous year ended on the 31st March, 1963. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following question, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that forfeited dividend of Rs. 3,18,148, provision for taxation of Rs. 44,23,892 and proposed dividend of Rs. 48,24,530 were not reserves for purposes of computation of capital of the assessee-company within the meaning of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 '2. The facts found by the Tribunal including those which are matters of record may shortly be stated as follows : In the assessment year in question it was claimed by the assessee that forfeited dividend of the amount of Rs. 3,18,143, provision for ta...
Tag this Judgment!Hindusthan Cables Ltd. and anr. Vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal84
ORDERMonjula Bose, J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs have claimed a sum of Rs. 19,003.65 P. against the defendants or either of them as compensation for loss and damages suffered by reason of non-delivery or short delivery of 22 pieces of copper wire bars. Hindusthan Cables Ltd., the plaintiff No. 1, it is alleged inter alia purchased 3955 pieces of Electrolytic Copper wire bars and the same were made over to the Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. the defendant No. 1 at Tacoma, Washington, U.S.A. on board their vessel 'Jag Ratna' for carriage to the Port of Calcutta against a Bill of Lading dated Nov. 30, 1965 endorsed in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. The vessel 'Jag Ratna' is alleged to have arrived at the Port of Calcutta on Feb. 22, 1966 and the said goods discharged at the port of Calcutta by March 1, 1966. Twenty-two pieces out of the said consignment, it is alleged were not received by the plaintiff No. 1 at all. In the premises, the plaintiff No. 1 alleges to have suffered loss and...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anusua Dhirajlal Kanakia Vs. Promode Kumar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Cal249,82CWN313
M.N. Roy, J.1. This is an application for leave to file an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and decree dated Feb. 24, 1977, made in G. A. No. 505 of 1972, affirming thereby the judgment and decrees passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 709 of 1971.2. The point involved in this case is whether after the incorporation of the amendment by the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, an appeal, out of a proceeding initiated earlier would be maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.3. The Respondent Opposite Parties are admittedly joint owners of premises no. 8, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), where there are several tenants. Three of the flats in the said premises were let out to the appellant petitioner, who is in Scooter business. A suit being Title Suit No, 266 of 1969, was filed against the appellant petitioner for permanent injunction restraining her and her...
Tag this Judgment!New India Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1977
Reported in: [1979]120ITR763(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J.1. This reference arises out of the two orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal both dated 9th March, 1971 and a consolidated statement of case has been submitted by the Tribunal pursuant to the order of the court. Relevant facts of this reference appearing from the said statement of case may briefly be stated :The assessee is a registered firm. Its business is to execute contracts for construction of roads, buildings and bridges under various Government departments. The assessment year involved in this reference is 1966-67, the corresponding financial year being 1965-66. The assessee disclosed a net profit of 7.2 per cent. on the receipts of Rs. 6,35,271 in the contract work. The assessee did not maintain any stock register showing the materials purchased and consumed in the process of construction work and the stock left. The expenses for construction were not properly vouched. The cash book was not properly maintained. Because of these defects the ITO did not accept...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Brinda Bala Debi Vs. Gour Mahoto and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal441,82CWN187
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order dated August 30, 1976 passed by the learned Munsif at Purulia rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 38 of the Bengal Money-lenders Act, 1940. The facts in short are as fallows :--The petitioner borrowed a sum at Rs. 1,200/- by executing an usufructuary mortgage deed dated March 3, 1967 in favour of the lender late Balaram Mahoto in respect of 1 acre of kamali land. The said lender and on his death his heirs, the opposite parties had been in possession thereof by cultivation. According to the petitioner, the lender and his successors had realised Rs. 2,100 for paddy and Rs. 700 for straw in all Rs. 2,800/-during 1967 to 1973 i. e. more than double the principal. As such the petitioner was entitled to a declaration that nothing is due on the kotkobala (usufructuary mortgage deed). The application was accordingly filed on April 16, 1974 for a taking account of the said loan and for declaration that nothing...
Tag this Judgment!Mahasukhrai Ramrichpal and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1977
Reported in: [1980]124ITR332(Cal)
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.1. This rule is directed against a prohibitory order by which the petitioner was directed not to make any payment to Smt. Panna Debi Agarwal or Sri D. P. Agarwal who retired from the partnership firm in 1975. Certain bank accounts of the petitioner-firm were also attached. On June 9, 1977, such attachment was withdrawn on condition that the petitioner-firm should within two weeks from that date deposit with the Registrar, A.S., of this court a sum of Rs. 19,000 and further pay Rs. 7,500, payable to Smt. Panna Debi Agarwal being the rent of the godown, to respondent No. 1, the Tax Recovery Officer. It is stated by Mr. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, that as the petitioner has deposited the amount with the Registrar, A.S., of this court, the attachment order has since been withdrawn. 2. It appears that one D. P. Agarwal was a partner in the firm styled as M/s. Mahasukhrai Ramrichpal and he retired from the said firm with effect from April 4, 1...
Tag this Judgment!The Abu Road Electricity and Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Gases ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal482,81CWN1101
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal against an order dated May 22, 1972 passed by Salil Kumar Roy Choudhury, J. directing that the arbitration agreement contained is the contract for supply of 400 K.W. Diesel Generating set by the respondent to the appellant be filed in this Court. There was a further direction that disputes mentioned in the petition be referred to the arbitrators to be appointed in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 29 of the general terms and conditions of the respondent and in default the parties would be entitled to apply to this Court for appointment of an arbitrator.2. The appellant, the Abu Road Electricity and Industries Co. Ltd. is engaged in supply of electricity in Abu Road and neighbouring areas. For increasing its capacity for supply of electricity, it approached the respondent, who carries on business inter alia of import of machinery, for supply of generating sets.3. The respondent, it appears, during 1962-63 offered to supply t...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Calcutta Vs. PulIn Chandra Daw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Cal443
ORDERMonjula Bose, J.1. The point of law which arises for determination in this suit, is whether the plaintiff can take advantage of Section 14 of the Lim. Act, 1908 by reason of earlier proceedings and thereby save limitation ?2. The plaintiff instituted this suit on March 21. 1960. The case in the plaint is inter alia that in May 19, 1919, the then Corporation of Calcutta acquired premises No. 12, Naya Katna Lane, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) for development purposes. The predecessor in interest of the defendants the then owners of the said premises, made an application for retention of a portion of the said premises as not being required for the said development purposes under Section 375(2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1899, then in force. After several proceedings it. appears the owners as directed, elected to pay an annual fee of Rupees 1,641/- and the then Corporation of Calcutta refrained from acquiring the surplus land. It is alleged that the owner...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »