Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal142
Hazra, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decree of the learned trial Judge dated June 20, 1971 for rupees 10,447.64 being the balance price of goods sold and delivered and the balance of security deposit. 2. At the hearing of the appeal before us the respondent, decree-holder, the plaintiff in the suit did not appear. The Advocate on record of the respondent stated that he did not receive any instructions to appear and wanted leave to retire. We gave him such leave, and he retired. 3. In this appeal the question of implied terms as to quality or fitness of the goods under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 has been raised. To appreciate the points which arise for our consideration I will first state briefly the facts and circumstances under which the suit was filed by Bengal Corporation Private Ltd., shortly Bengal Corporation against the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, Shortly Port Commissioners. 4. In response to invitation by the Port Commissioners for tenders for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas95(Cal)
Salil Kumar Roy Chowdhury J. 1. This is an application for sanction of a scheme of arrangement under Sections 391, 392, 393 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The petitioner No. 1, A. W. Figgis & Co. Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the transferor-company, was incorporated on the 12th of May, 1947, having its registered office at No. D-3/5, Gillander House, 8 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The transferor-company has an authorised share capital of Rs. 15,60,000 divided into 1,56,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the transferor-company is Rs. 8,00,000 divided into 16,000 'A' ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each fully paid up and 64,000 'B' ordinary shares of Rs. 10 fully paid up. The objects of the company, inter alia, are to transact of carry on all kinds of booking agency or commission business and in particular the booking of tea, jute, gunny and any other commodity which may seem desirable in relation to the investment of money, the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]50CompCas381(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, for an order excusing and relieving the petitioner of the negligence, defaults and non-compliance with the directions contained in Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956, and Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, and from all liabilities thereunder and for consequential reliefs.2. The petitioners presented this application on the 26th of July, 1977. On that date an order for maintaining status quo in the meantime was passed and subsequently directions for filing affidavits were given which were extended from time to time and, thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately, appeared in the list for hearing.3. The petitioners are the directors of the company, East India Hotels Ltd., which was incorporated as a public limited company and having its registered office at No. 4, Mango Lane, Calcutta. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 10 crores, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]120ITR529(Cal)
C.K. Banerji, J.1. This reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is at the instance of Mriganka Mohan Sur, the assessee, and arises out of a reassessment for the assessment year 1946-47, the relevant previous year being the financial year 1945-46. 2. The original assessment for the said assessment year was made on the 23rd June, 1948. On receipt of information that the assessee was the proprietor of a business known as the Oriental Traders of No. 70, Serpentine Lane, Calcutta, which had an account in its name in the Dharmatolla Branch of the Hooghly Bank Ltd., the ITO reopened the said assessment on the 29th March, 1951, under Section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The assessee appeared through his authorised representative at the said reassessment proceeding though he was directed to appear personally in the course of which it was admitted that the assessee had two accounts in the said bank not disclosed in the original assessment. The pass book of only one of the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]125ITR684(Cal)
C.K. Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for acquisition under Chapter XXA of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. The relevant facts are shortly as follows :By a deed of conveyance dated the 4th April, 1973, Jayanta Nath Ghosh, the respondent No. 3, sold to Anup Kumar Kapoor and Adarsh Lal Chopra, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, the premises No. 8, Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta (hereinafter called the said property) for Rs. 1,80,000.3. Statements under Section 269P(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner were duly filed by the transferees disclosing, inter alia, the following particulars:(a) The said property comprised of a partly one and partly two-storeyed building together with one-storied cut-houses having a total land area of 1 bigha 5 cottahs 3 chittaks and 4 sft. (b) The buildings were more than 100 years old. (c) The property was let out to tenants. (d) The estimated fair market v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1979)ILLJ328Cal
Salil Kumar Datta, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., dated August 25, 1977, whereby the rule obtained by the appellant, the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company), on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution was discharged. The facts giving rise to the proceeding, according to the company are as follows: The company is carrying on the business of generation and distribution of electricity for reward and the respondent No. 2, Amaresh Roy, was a clerk in its revenue department. On August 3, 1976, the company dismissed Roy for having misappropriated money belonging to the company. At the time of dismissal no conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was pending between the company and its workmen before any conciliation officer. As a matter of abundant caution the company made an application before P.C. Sen, conciliation officer and Joint Labour Commissioner, Government of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1494
ORDERSudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This revision arises out of an application by Sachindra Nath Ma-jumder, the father of the victim girl (third party) against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nadia In a case under Sections 366 and 368, I.P.C.2. According to the prosecution P.W. 5 Mintu Mazumder is the daughter of P.W. 1 Sachindra Nath Majumder, On 13-10-1975, on the day of 'Nabamipuja' at about 7 P.M. Mintu went out of her house to see the Goddess 'Durga' but she did not return home till late at night. The family members along with others searched for her in vain. It was gathered that the accused Bistu Pada Das had enticed her away from the lawful guardianship of the father. In the night on 15-10-75 Mintu was recovered from the house of accused Kesta Pada, brother of Bistu Pada Das. Bistu married Mintu who was said to be aged 15/16 years, after such enticement. The F. I. R. was lodged at Mohanpur P. S. on 16-10-75 at 6-05 A.M. On completion of investi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]119ITR751(Cal)
Sen, J.1. The facts and the proceedings leading up to this reference areshortly as follows : In the assessment year 1958-59, the relevant previousyear ending on the 31st March, 1958, Messrs. Karam Chand Thapar &Bros.; (P.) Ltd , Calcutta, the assessee, filed a return showing an income ofRs. 28,14,601. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return showingsuch income as Rs. 5,42,093. Ultimately, the assessee was assessed on a totalincome of Rs. 30,08,425. The assessee had paid advance tax under Section 18A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, which fell short of 80% of the tax ultimately determined to be payable by the assessee in the regular assessment and theITO charged a sum of Rs. 50,678.69 as interest under Section 18A(6) of the said Act. 2. The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of assessment on various grounds challenging, inter alia, the following :(a) Disallowance of bad debts.(b) Disallowance of the losses following sale of shares.(c) Addition of amounts as income from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1979CriLJ288
R. Bhattacharya, J.1. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner Amiya Kumar Sen in connexion with the Tollygunge P. S. Case No. 312 dated 2-5-1978 under Section 120B/ 408/477A/109 of the Indian Penal Code. It is being opposed by Mr. Biren Mitra, the learned public prosecutor assisted by Mr. N. A. Chowdhury. Mr. Amulya Kumar Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by Mr. Mitra regarding the maintainability of the application on the ground that when the petitioner filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the same was rejected, the second application before the High Court in connexion with the same case and on the same grounds, is not maintainable according to the provision under Section 438 itself. Mr. Mukherjee's contention, however, is that even if an applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal256,82CWN1119
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant and is directed against an appellate decree dated June 25, 1968. It arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession and injunction winch was dismissed by the trial court but was decreed in part by the lower appellate court. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the present appeal, instituted the suit on the allegation that they are the owners of 2.73 acres of agricultural land appertaining to R. S. plot Nos. 423, 423/477 and 423/478 of Mouza Madhuban, P.S. Kalna, District-Burdwan of which defendant No. 1 was a bargadar. The plaintiffs started a proceeding under Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for termination of cultivation by defendant No. 1 in respect of such lands and also for recovery of owner's share of produce before the Bhagchas Board, Kalna in the year 1956, and obtained an award in their favour on Jan 10, 1957. The award was upheld on an appeal preferred...
Tag this Judgment!