Kolkata Court December 1978 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.
Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. Vs. Shalimar Tar Products (1935) Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas296(Cal)
R. Bhattacharya, J. 1. These three applications have been filed under Section' 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, by Turner Morrison & Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the petitioner-company) against the respondents, Shalimar Tar Products Ltd., Angelo Brothers Ltd., Lodna Colliery Co. (1920) Ltd., Ganapat Rai & Sons (1946) Ltd., Metal Craft (India) Ltd., Haridas Mundhra, Vijay Mundhra and several other persons. Respondent No. 1, Shalimar Tar Products (1935) Ltd., respondent No. 2, Angelo Brothers Ltd., respondent No. 3, Lodna Collieries Go. (1920) Ltd., respondent No. 4, Ganapat Rai & Sons (1946) Pvt. Ltd., and respondent No. 5, Metal Craft (India) Ltd., are hereinafter described respectively as Shalimar Tar, Angelo Brothers, Lodna Colliery, Ganapat Rai & Sons and Metal Craft. The three separate applications are considered and heard together as there are common questions of fact and law.2. The case of the petitioner-company may be briefly stated. The petitioner-company is one limited by share...
Vishnu Agencies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR823(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts found and/or admitted in this reference may shortly be stated as follows :2. Messrs. Vishnu Agencies (P.) Ltd. is the assessee and the assessment year involved is 1966-67, the relevant accounting year being the one ended on the 31st January, 1966. The only question in this reference is whether the assessee was entitled to claim a deduction of an amount of Rs. 76,127 paid by it to M/s. Mangilal Sethia, the sole selling agent appointed by the assessee under an agreement dated the 2nd February, 1959. The agreement was entered into by and between the assessee and the said sole sellingagent in respect of spun R.C.C. pipes and collars manufactured by the assessee and provided, inter alia, as follows:(a) The agency would be effective on and from the 1st February, 1959. (b) The sole selling agent would deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 to be held by the assessee without interest during the subsistence of the agreement. (c) The sole selling agent would not during his a...
Tarapada Hazari and ors. Vs. Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal102,83CWN417
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against the order No. 8 dated 26-8-1974 passed in Case No. 33 of 1974 under Section 44(2a) read with Section 57 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act by the Revenue Officer, Tollygunge-I Settlement 'C' Camp. The learned Revenue Officer initiated proceedings on 29-7-1974 in respect of finally published record of rights relating khatian No. 415/3 of Mouza Matiary J.L. 94, P.S. Sonarpore as in his view the same was not properly recorded. It appears that in the proceeding the parties appeared before the authority and after hearing the parties, the learned Revenue Officer delivered a judgment directing the lands of Khatian No. 415/3 with an area of 1.18 acres as also another khatian not being the subject-matter of this Rule of the said Mouza which was within the bed of Bidyadhari river be recorded in the name of State Government and the names of the recorded possession be recorded in each agricultural and homestead plot in column 23 as...
Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR490(Cal)
Dipak Kumae Sen, J.1. On an application of the Alkali & Chemical Corporation of India Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, under Section 18 of Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has drawn up a statement of case and referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court as arising out of its order dated the 28th August, 1975:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that portion of the profits and gains attributable to the assessee company's priority industry, which was deducted under Section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in computing its total income in the assessments under the said Income-tax Act, could be said to be not includible in its total income within the meaning of Rule 4 of the rules in the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and a proportionate reduction was liable to be made from the capital base under the said rule in...
Nanda Lal Agarwalla Vs. Rameswar Lal Sharma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal30
N.C. Mukherji, J. 1. These two cross objections were filed in the two appeals which arise out of the judgment and decrees passed by Shri S. K. Ghosal, Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal Nos. 1067 and 1148 of 1973 dated 15-5-7,6 substantially affirming those of Shri S. Chakraborty, Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah in Title Suit Nos. 332 and 333 of 1967 dated 11-8-73.2. The plaintiffs brought two suits for ejectment of the defendants on the ground of building and rebuilding and for own use and occupation. The trial court decreed the suits on both the grounds. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred two appeals before the learned District Judge. The appeals were heard by the learned Additional District Judge, who affirmed the findings of the learned Munsif that the plaintiffs were entitled to get decrees for ejectment on the ground of building and rebuilding. The learned Judge also agreed with the finding of the learned Munsif that the plaintiffs required the premis...
Sm. Marchhia Sahun and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal94,83CWN222
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. This Rule is directed against order No. 8 dated 16-9-70 in case No. 36 of 1970 under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 passed by the S. R. O. II and A.S.O. O.S.E. under Section 44(2a). The proceedings were instituted by the said officer in respect of Khatian No. 226 (14.80 acres) and Khatian No, 299 (1) (3.80 acres) of Mouza Batijora, P. S. Gazole on the ground that the entries of the last settlement record were eliminated without following the principles laid down in Schedule B appended to Rule 25 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules. It appears that Sakhi Chand Saha who died after vesting had in his possession 22.52 acres of land in khas possession and by a registered deed of gift D/- 31-1-46,18.60 acres of land of khatian 22.6 & 299 (1) were gifted to the petitioners who are his daughter and daughter's son respectively. The officer was of opinion that these transactions were not bona fide and during khasra enquiry or...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Executors to the Estate of Sir E.C. Ben ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR814(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The present reference arises out of the wealth-tax assessment of the estate of late Sir E.C. Benthal in the hands of his executors in the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59, the relevant valuation dates being the 31st March of the calendar years 1957 and 1958. The items involved are 13,280 ordinary shares and 45,000 deferred shares of Messrs. Bird & Co. (P.) Ltd. and 5,255 ordinary and 20,000 deferred shares of Messrs. F.W. Heilgers & Co. (P.) Ltd. The face value of the ordinary shares of both the companies are Rs. 100 per share and the face value of the deferred shares of both are Rs. 10 per share.2. For the assessment year 1957-58, the WTO estimated the market value of the ordianry shares of Messrs. Bird & Co. (P.) Ltd. at Rs. 172 per share and that of Messrs. F. W. Heilgers & Co. (P.) Ltd. at Rs. 198 per share and the deferred shares of both the said companies at 1/10th of the value of their respective ordinary shares estimated respectively as aforesaid. For ...
Ghanshyam Das Vs. Krishna Gopal Ghosal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal19,83CWN228
ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J. 1. This Rule is directed against order No. 111 dated 11th Nov., 1976 whereby the plaintiff's petition under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was allowed and the defence against delivery of possession was struck out. It appears that on the petitioner's application under Sec. 17 (2A) Clause (b) the Court by Order No. 14 dated 18-11-69 directed the defendant to deposit the amount of Rs. 347.75 P, in 19 instalments of Rs. 17.38 P every month and last instalment of Rs. 17.53 P. in the following month within July 1971. The petitioner it is alleged in pursuance of the order duly made deposits of 18 instalments but through mistake instead of depositing 19th instalment deposited within the time for 19th instalment Rs. 17.53P as the 20th and last instalment thereby missing the 19th instalment. This mistake was detected by the plaintiff but the defendant deposited on 23-8-71 the amount with interest which was obviously after the due date.2. The pla...
M.D. Mundhra and ors. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1978
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas346(Cal),83CWN279
P.C. Barooah, J.1. The three petitioners before us, who are directors of Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Private Ltd. (hereinafter the ' Company ') having its registered office at 13, Camac Street, Calcutta-17, have in this application impugned the legality of a proceeding instituted against them and the others under Section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter ' Act '), on the basis of a complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1, the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore and have prayed that the proceedings pending against them be quashed.2. The allegations made in the aforesaid complaint in brief was that the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the company for the year ending December 31, 1975, was placed in the adjourned annual general meeting held on July 30, 1976, after a period of more than six months from the date when the accounts were last submitted and as such there was a violation of Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›