Kolkata Court September 1978 Judgments
Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd. Vs. Assam Brook Estates Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal64
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J. 1. This is an application by the defendant No. 2 for stay of hearing of the suit, leave for filing the affidavit of documents, for an order, restoring the defence in the suit etc. The plaintiff had instituted the suit against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of Rs. 7,941.70, interests and costs. The suit was settled with the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 filed its written statement denying the plaintiff's claims. On 29-3-77, the learned Master passed an order directing the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 to file their respective affidavit of documents by 2-5-77. None of the parties complied with the said order. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed its affidavit of documents on 2-2-78. On 26th June 1978, the plaintiff took out an application before the learned Master for an order against the defendant No. 2 for filing its affidavit of documents and for striking out the defence in default. The notice of that application was duly received by the de...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadhatri Bhandar and Jagadhatri Oil Mills Vs. Commercial Union Assur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal56,83CWN162
Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Re. 30,000/- under an Insurance Policy. 2. The case of the plaintiff, a partnership firm, was that the defendant, Commercial Union Assurance Company Limited, entered into a contract of insurance with the plaintiff by issuing a Burglary and House Breaking Policy dated Sept. 17, 1966, indemnifying loss of money to the limit of Rs. 50,000/- in respect of a securely locked countrymada safe in the shop of the plaintiff known as 'Jagadhatri Bhandar', situate at B.T. Road, Titagarh, in the District of 24 Parganas. The said Insurance Policy was renewed from year to year and the amount of insurance cover was subsequently reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. The plaintiff paid the last renewal premium on Jan. 7, 1970 and the policy was renewed for a period of 12 months from Jan. 7, 1970 till the anniversary of the date in the succeeding year. 3. The further case of the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Surrendra (Overseas) Private Ltd. Vs. Tom Wilhelmsen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal224
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The plaintiff imported 23430 pieces of 'Trough Bars for fabrication of crossing slippers and Turnouts' by the vessels M. V. 'Tai Yin' from Gefle to Calcutta under Bill of Lading No. 3 dated 29-12-58 issued at Gothenburg in Sweden by the defendant No. 3 Messrs Wilh Wilhelmsen, a partnership firm of which the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are partners. The defendant No. 3 is the owner of the vessel 'Tai Yin'. The said Bill of Lading was issued by the defendant No. 3 subject to a printed notice for payment of rebate or deferred commission and the said notice was issued by the defendant No. 3 along with some other companies. The contents of the said notice is as follows :MADRAS CALCUTTA and TUTICORINSCANDINAVIAN JOINT SERVICE.AktiebolagetWith WilhelmsenAktieselskapetSvenska Ostaslatiska Kompanlet Det stasiatiske(The Swedish East Asia Co Ltd.)OSLO, NORWAY. GOTHENBURN, SWEDEN Kompangl (The East Asiatic Company Limited) COPENHAGEN, DENMARK NOTICE TO SHIPPERS Deferred ...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Paper Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal114,83CWN328
ORDERAmiya Kumar Mookerji, J. 1. Common questions of law and facts are involved in these Rules. All these Rules were heard together. My judgment in C. R. 2529(W) of 1974 shall govern all other Rules.2. In these Rules the petitioners challenge the validity of the notification dated 18-2-1970 issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointing a Commission of Inquiry known as 'Sarkar Commission', in particular, items Nos. 2, 4, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the Schedule 'C' to the said notification. The main grounds of challenge are that, those items are vague, indefinite and not definite matters of public importance; some of the matters had already been inquired into by the various departments of the Government, measures and actions had already been taken, as such those matters could not form the subject-matter of further inquiry by the said Commission.3. The petitioner is a public limited company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It is one of ...
Tag this Judgment!Vabakktha Gopalpillai Vasudeva Pillai Vs. National Small Industries Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Cal107
ORDER1. The plaintiff instituted the above suit against the defendant for refund of the earnest money of Rs. 24,447.00 p. for inquiry into damages and decree for the amount found due and other reliefs. Subsequent to the institution of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Ch. XIII-A of O. S. Rules for a summary judgment against the defendant who contested the said application, The application was heard by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji on 4-8-1977 and it was directed inter alia that the defendant would file written statement and contest the suit. All the directions in the order dated 4-8-1977 were duly complied with by the parties and the suit appeared in the Peremptory list. At the hearing, the defendant pointed out that this Court could not entertain the suit as the same was below its pecuniary jurisdiction. The suit has been valued at Rs. 1050/- on the ground that this Court along with the Presidency Small Causes Court have concurrent jurisdiction to t...
Tag this Judgment!Arup Kumar Pal Chaudhury Vs. Satyesh Chandra Bagchi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-1978
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas664(Cal)
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The Insurance inspector has filed a petition of complaint alleging that the three accused are the managing directors of M/s. International Remedies Private Ltd., having its factory at 66/40, Parui Kutcha Road, Calcutta. The accused are principal employers within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the E.S.I. Act. The accused failed to submit the contribution cards. They were, therefore, prosecuted under Section 85(a) and (g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, read with Section 4(i)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1975, and for violation of Regulation 26 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950. Hence this rule.2. The learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that the petition of complaint shows that M/s. International Remedies Private Ltd. is a factory. There is no averment that the directors were responsible for the supervision and control of the factory or that they are in actual possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. (Now Know ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR858(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Messrs. Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd. in the assessment year 1964-65, the relevant previous year having ended on the 31st December, 1963. The assessee, inter alia, acts as managing agents, secretaries and/or treasurers of other limited companies and at the material time had been appointed as the secretary of one Tukvar & Co. Ltd. under an agreement dated the 26th July, 1954, which, inter alia, provided as follows :(a) The assessee was appointed as secretary on and from the 1st July, 1954, to continue in such employment for a period of 10 years certain from the said date. (b) The assessee would provide suitable office and establishment for Tukvar & Co. Ltd., Calcutta. (c) Subject to the provisions of the Companies Act the assessee would in addition to their duties under this agreement perform other duties and work for Tukvar & Co. Ltd. which the directors of the latter may decide and would receive reasonable ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagadish Prasad Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: [1980]126ITR726(Cal)
Sen, J. 1. Jagadish Prasad Agarwalla of Nadia, the assessee in the instant case, filed a return of his income for the assessment year 1964-65, the relevant previous year having ended on 1370 B. S. Ratha Jatra, i.e., being the period from the 14th July, 1962, to the 3rd July, 1963, according to the English calendar. During the, assessment, a cash credit of Rs. 15,000 was discovered in his books in the name of one Kedar Nath Agarwalla. Summons under Section 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961, issued to the said Kedar Nath Agarwalla at the address of the latter as furnished by the assessee, by registered post, came back unserved with the postal remark ' not known ' The assessee's explanation was that Kedar Nath was a citizen of Pakistan, that he was then in Pakistan and had no source of income in India.2. The ITO held that the source and nature of the said cash credit had not been proved and, accordingly, he treated the same as the assessee's income from undisclosed source and included the same in...
Tag this Judgment!Maya Debi Bansal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR125(Cal)
Bimal Chandra Basak, J. 1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'), is at the instance of the assessee. The question referred for the opinion of this court is as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the learned AAC in restoring back the order of the Income-tax Officer with the modification that the assessment in question should be treated under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts found or admitted in the proceedings are as follows: The assessee is an individual. The assessment year is 1960-61 and the relevant accounting year is the financial year ending on 31st March, 1960. The assessee was required to file her return of income in pursuance of a notice dated the 9th September, 1963, under Section 148 of the 1961 Act, as the assessee had not filed her return of income in the usual course under the provisions of Indian I...
Tag this Judgment!Nath Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Jogendra Kumar Majumder
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1978
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas407(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is a rule for contempt issued by me suo motu for publishing a printed notice to prevent the sale directed to be held in court on the 21st of July, 1978, at 2 p.m. The said publicationis as follows : ', Purchasers-Beware This is to inform the intending purchasers of ' the Kotrang properties ' which have been notified for public auction on the 21st of July, 1978, at the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta that a suit being Suit No, 300 of 1978 has been filed by me in the High Court at Calcutta disputing the title of Nath Bank Limited (in liquidation) in the said ' Kotrang Properties ' and claiming inter alia that the said properties are subject to a registered mortgage executed by the legal owner in favour of myself. Dated 21st July, 1978. Gourdeb Mukherjee 4, Commercial Building, Calcutta-700001. ' 2. It appears that the contemner, Gourdeb Mukherjee, is alleging that a registered mortgage dated the 7th of August, 1953, created in his favour by the then own...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »