Kolkata Court June 1978 Judgments

The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Mansur Ali an ...

Court: Kolkata

R. Bhattacharya, J.1. The present revisional application has been filed by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal on behalf of the State against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Coochbehar on 18-2-1977 granting bail to the accused-opposite parties, Mansur Ali and Bajra Mia who were awaiting trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coochbehar under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. along with another accused Nurul Mia.2. The relevant facts connected with the application before us are simple. The accused-opposite parties along with one Nurul Mia were committed to the Court of Session for trial by the committing Magistrate under Sections 341, 448 and 376 of the I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case for trial to the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge. Nurul Mia was granted bail but the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for bail made on behalf of the accused-opposite parties on 22-1-1977. Thereaf...

Bhadu Bala Debi Vs. Gobardhan Chattaraj and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1978Cal425

N.C. Mukherji, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri A. K. Nandy, Subordinate Judge, Asansol, dated 13th May, 1971, in Title Appeal No. 63 of 1970 modifying those of Shri T. B. Deb, Munsif, 2nd court, Asansol, dated 30th May, 1978 in Title Suit No. 144 of 1968.2. The plaintiff is the appellant in this court. The plaintiff brought a suit for establishment of title, permanent and mandatory injunction. The suit arises out of a dispute in respect of a drain leading to a tank of the defendants from a village pathway passing over the lands of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of plot No. 412 on which the plaintiff's residence is situated. On the north-west of this plot there lies a tank on C. S. plot No. 414 belonging to the defendants. There is a nullah arising from the village 'Coolie Rd.' in the south west of plot No. 412 passing over plot No. 412 leading to the tank in plot No. 414. The water of the tank dries up in summer and in order to keep suff...

Chanti Charan Pal Vs. Monindra Nath Das and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1979Cal12,82CWN1063

ORDERSalil Kumar Datta, J.1. These three Rules are direct-ed against three orders issuing a warrant of arrest of the judgment-debtor, who is the petitioner before me, in execution of three decrees for money against him. It was submitted by Mr. Palit that before passing the orders no opportunity was given to his client to oppose the applications of the decree-holders for issue of warrant of arrest against his client. This contention is, not correct as the records show otherwise.2. Mr. Palit, however, has taken a point of law which appears to be of sub-' stance. The proceedings arise out of execution of decrees passed by S. C. C. Court and each of the decrees is much below the sum of Rs. 500/-. Section 58(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to its amendment as stated below, provided as follows :'Every person detained in civil prison In execution of a decree shall' be so dp-tained -- (a) where the decree is for payment of a sum of money exceeding fifty rupees for a period of six month...

Ajit Kumar Sarkar Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1979]49CompCas909(Cal),1979CriLJ61,83CWN108

Jyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. Criminal Revision Nos. 732-34 of 1977 are taken up together as they involve the same points of law and will accordingly be governed by this judgment. The rules in these cases are directed against criminal proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for prosecution of the petitioner and others for offences under the Companies Act, viz., under Sections 159 and 162(1) of the said Act. The petitioner along with the other members of the family is a shareholder of the company carrying on a business in coal trade named A. Sircar Sons (Private) Ltd. of 60/20, Gouri Bari Lane, Calcutta. The petitioner is the managing director of the said company. It is the case of the petitioner that day-to-day management along with the management of the business was entrusted to his elder brother, Rajendra Nath Sarkar, one of the directors of the said company, as the petitioner had to manage another business as managing agent/contractor of a small colliery at Asansol an...

M.M. Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1979]117ITR362(Cal)

Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. On the application of M.M. Mehta, the assessee, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has drawn up a statement of case and has referred for the opinion of this court the following questions as questions of law arising from its order :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the speculation income earned in the names of Mukesh Mehta and Bhupen Mehta belonged to the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,800 was income of the assessee for the assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. The admitted facts and/or facts found in the proceedings leading up to the present references are, inter alia, that in the assessment year 1970-71, the previous year being 2025 G.D., the assessee was assessed to income-tax. It was found that some income had arisen in the...

inchek Tyres Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1978(2)ELT643(Cal)

Ganendra Narayan Ray, J.1. In the instant writ petition, order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for Refund Section dated 23rd November, 1972 rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund as time barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appellate order passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, dated 9th July, 1973 affirming the decision of the Assistant Collector of Customs for refund and the revisional order passed under Section 131 of the Customs Act by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dismissing the revisional application are under challenge.2. The case of the petitioner company in short is that the petitioner had been carrying on the business of manufacturer of rubber tyres and in course of its said business the petitioner had to import Insoluble sulphur under the trade name 'Crystex N-Insoluble Sulphur' in bulk quantities since required for the manufacture of rubber tyres. The petitioner contends that Sulphur including the...

Madan Mohan Varma and ors. Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1979Cal67,(1979)1CompLJ366(Cal)

ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by three petitioners who claim to have been candidates in the last LL. B. examination held by the University of Calcutta. In this application they challenge the action of the University in cancelling the said LL. B. Examination and the resolution passed by the University Council on the 11th May, 1978 and postponing the other papers of the said examination. It appears that on the 3rd May, 1978, 5th May, 1978 and on 10th May, 1978 final LL. B. Examination was held of the following subjects: Rules of Court, Drafting and Pleading and Law of Equity. Examination of three other papers, viz., Company Law, Labour Law and Taxation had yet to take place when the cancellation order was passed. The ground for cancellation of the said examinations and of postponing of the rest of the examinations was stated by the University to be 'mass copy-ing' by most of the examinees in the examination as so far held. On behalf of the petitioners it was conte...

Nirmal Chandra Dutta Vs. Girindra Narayan Roy and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1978Cal492,82CWN1026

M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This Rule is at the instance of the decree-holder in an execution proceeding and it is directed against order No. 64 dated January 3, 1978 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Alipore. The only question that is involved in this Rule is whether the opposite party No, 3, the State of West Bengal was entitled to lodge a caveat under Section 148-A as introduced in the Civil P. C. by Section 50 of the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976. 2. On May 31, 1975, the petitioner obtained a decree for ejectment and mesne profits against the judgment-debtors opposite parties in respect of the first floor and the top floor of premises No. 100, Dilkusha Street, Karaya, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 87 of 1973 of the Second Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore. On September 1, 1975, the petitioner put the said decree in execution in Title Execution Case No. 23 of 1975 when the Bailiff of the court accompanied by the petitioner went to deliver possession of the disputed...

Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1979]120ITR399(Cal)

Deb, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question called for by the court is as follows : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the recalculation of abatement under Articles IV to VI of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Pakistan was a mistake apparent from the records within the meaning of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' 2. The learned counsel for both the parties rightly submit that the letters 're' of the word 'recalculation' in the question is a mistake. Therefore, we reframe it by deleting the letters ' re ' from the aforesaid word. 3. The assessment year is 1962-63. The assessee is a company. The assessee earned income both in India and Pakistan. Its Indian income less capital gains was assessed at Rs. 10,13,442 and the capital gains was assessed at Rs. 1,57,747. Its Pakistan income under the Pakistan Income-tax Act was assessed at Rs. 14,72...

Acharya Brothers Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1982(10)ELT950(Cal)

ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. This suit has been filed by Acharya Brothers against Union of India. The case of the Plaintiff is that at all material times the plaintiff carried on business as exporters of Jute goods from India. The Plaintiff during February 1967 and May 1967 presented before the Custom House Calcutta diverse shipping bills for export of jute goods full particulars whereof have been given in paragraph 3 of the Plaint. In respect of jute goods intended to be exported under those shipping bills, the plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs. 35,227.72 by way of advance payment to be appropriated or adjusted towards customs duty that might be payable, upon the actual exportation of the jute goods as mentioned in the Shipping bills. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that the said goods were not ultimately shipped by the plaintiff. As a result, notice with regard to non-shipment or short shipment of the said goods was duly filed with the customs authorities of the defendant. Accord...