Kolkata Court July 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.
Premier Suppliers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR633(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Premier Suppliers (P.) Ltd., the assessee in the assessment year 1965-66, for which the corresponding previous year ended on the 3rd November, 1964.2. The ITO found that a sum of Rs. 25,000 was credited in the books of the assessee in the account of one Sureka Jute Company and issued summons to the latter to adduce evidence and produce its books and the other documents to prove the source of this credit. By a letter dated the 17th December, 1968, Sureka Jute Company informed the ITO that its books of accounts had been seized and retained by the income-tax department. Thereupon, the ITO called upon the assessee to prove that the loan was a genuine one. The assessee produced one Bidyanand Sureka, the sole proprietor of the Sureka Jute Company, who deposed before the ITO, inter alia, that he was a partner of the firm, Daluram Gaganmall, since 1964 and had advanced money to the assessee in the past. The books o...
Bata Krishna Manna and anr. Vs. Md. Majit Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1275
ORDERSudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. A very short point namely whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction to interfere with the accounts submitted by the Receiver appointed under Section 146 of the Cr. P.C. crops up for determination in the instant revision.2. On Nov. 28, 1975 at the instance of the 1st party/opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barasat drew up three proceedings and attached the lands in dispute and appointed the present petitioners as joint Receivers of the attached disputed properties. On Dec. 22, 1975 the petitioners submitted an account before the learned Magistrate showing the expenses for harvesting, thrashing and storing etc. and prayed for realisation of the same. On Jan. 6, 1976 on the basis of an application by the 1st party/opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 145(5) of the Cr. P.C. 1973 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was pleased to cancel the said proceedings and to find them in possession of the property in dispute; and the learned Magi...
B.C. Paul and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal423,82CWN1074
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This Rule is directed against order No. 69 dated Feb. 8, 1972 of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Alipore. By the said order, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. It appears that the opposite party, the Union of India, invited tenders from Madras for the supply of 'oil cocoanut' on certain terms and conditions. The petitioner submitted a tender for the supply of oil cocoanut. It was alleged that the opposite party prescribed a new standard of specifications whereupon the petitioner claimed an extra charge at the rate of Rs. 25/- for such new specifications. Ultimately the Union of India accepted the tender as submitted by the petitioner and issued the letter of acceptance to the petitioner from Madras, It was, however, alleged by the petitioner that by accepting such tender the opposite party did not accept the extra charge which was claimed by the petitioner for new specif...
Bimal Kumar Das Vs. Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal420
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The Corporation ofCalcutta is the plaintiff. It has been alleged that the defendant is the owner of the disputed premises. A sum of Rs. 1785.60 P. is payable to the plaintiff towards the arrears of consolidated rate and arrear bills up to 4th quarter of 1951-1952 and Rs. 149.53 P. as interest. Such amount was not paid in spite of demands. The suit is for recovery ofsuch amount and for a further declaration that such sum is a first charge on the premises in question. 2. The defence is that the suit is not maintainable and the claim is barred by limitation. During the pendency of an appeal preferred by him, the present suit was illegally instituted. 3. The learned Munsif accepted the plaintiff's version and passed a decree in the preliminary form. The defendant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore. Being aggrieved by that decision, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Four points have been urged on behalf of the ap...
Hrishikesh Barik Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal556
B.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiff's case is that the disputed property was khas mahal land appertaining to a jama of Rs. 10-1-2 ps. Nibaran and Brojomoyee used to occupy 2 cents of land of sub-khatian No. 96 and 59 cents of plot No. 156 appertaining to Khatian No. 95. The plaintiff is Nibaran's only heir. Subsequently that jama was divided among the co-sharers and thereby the plaintiff used to pay Rs. 4-8-5 ps. as proportionate rent in his share. In the R.S. Khatian the plaintiff's share was recorded in Khatian No. 781 and Brojomoyee's share in Khatian No. 780. Further in those khatians the rental was recorded as Rs. 40-5-0 and Rs. 25-12-0 respectively. Those properties cannot be arbitrarily assessed to such high rent. Such assessment is entirely illegal and unfair and the rental would be Rs. 2-12-2 and Re. 1-12-3 ps. respectively. After service of notice under Section 80 of the Civil P. C. the plaintiff has asked for a declaration that such assessment of rent is illegal and for an injun...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR431(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts found and/or admitted in these proceedings are shortly as follows:M/s. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, has been carrying on business in cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea. In the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the corresponding previous years being the calendar years ending on 30th November of 1965 and 1966, respectively, the assessee claimed deduction, inter alia, of amounts paid as ' overseas allowance ', ' managing allowance ', ' devaluation allowance ' and ' transport allowance ' to some of its employees, in the computation of its business profits and income. It was contended that these items did not represent any benefit or amenity or perquisite within the meaning of Section 40(c)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time and were fully deductible.2. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee and added back 40% of the amounts claimed.3. Being aggrieved by the additions the assessee pref...
The National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal379,82CWN1031
Salil Kumar Datta, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of Ajay Kumar Basu, J. dated May 19, 1977 passed in Suit No. 241 of 1968. 2. The Bank of India Ltd. instituted the said suit against the National Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) inter alia for a decree for Rs. 28,85,975.16 p. and interest due on account of moneys lent and advanced by the Bank to the Company and interest thereon and for a declaration that the stocks of the iron and steel, and stores, raw or manufactured or in process of manufacture, and products, goods or movable properties of any kind stored in the premises or godown of the Company or wherever situated, present and future book debts and claims, all stand hypothecated and charged by way of first and paramount charge in favour of the Bank for repayment of its aforesaid dues. The defendants Nos. 2 to 8 were also impleaded as guarantors against whom also the decree as aforesaid was prayed for, as they were guarantors to the loans an...
Jesraj Subhachand Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Cal536
ORDERMonjula Bose, J. 1. Non-delivery of two consignments of art silk piece goods covered by Railway Receipts Nos. 948503 and 948521, both dated Aug. 14, 1966 is the basis of the plaintiff's claim herein for Rs. 14,746.46 as damages against the Railways, as carriers represented by the defendant Union of India.2. It is alleged in the plaint that on Aug. 14, 1966 one R. Bhoggilal and Co., as agents of the plaintiff, delivered the said consignments to the Central Eastern Railway at Wadi Bandar Station, Bombay for carriage to Shalimar on the South Eastern Railways and there to be delivered to the plaintiff. It is alleged that on or about Sept. 17, 1966 and Oct. 3, 1966, the two Railway Receipts were duly endorsed in favour of the plaintiff within the original jurisdiction of this court. It is alleged further that the said goods were not delivered and/or were lost in transit and the plaintiff being deprived of its goods is entitled to be compensated by the defendant for the value thereof na...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›