Kolkata Court October 1979 Judgments
Pratap Ch. Sukhoni Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-31-1979
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ296Cal
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Pratap Chand Sukhoni, the petitioner No. 1, carries on business at Kalimpong, in partnership under the name and style of Jetmull Bhojraj, the petitioner No. 2. It is not in dispute that the said business was originally carried on by a different partnership which was reconstituted from time to time. The said partnership was finally dissolved by a deed dated the 18th April, 1970, with effect from the 14th April, 1970, and the assets thereof were divided and partitioned between the partners thereof. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner No. 1 was allotted the business Jetmull Bhojraj at Kalimpong, and the petitioner No. 1 became the sole proprietor thereof, Subsequent thereto the petitioner again entered into a partnership in respect of the said business by a deed of partnership dated the 18th May, 1970, and the business is being continued by the new partnership.2. It is also not in dispute that prior to its dissolution, the earlier partnership came under the Employees' P...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Mittal and ors. Vs. Universal Wires Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-30-1979
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas36(Cal)
Salil k. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 397, 398, etc., of the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, for the appointment of a special officer and/or administrator, injunction restraining respondents Nos. 2-5 to act as directors and for a declaration that the meetings dated May 14, 1976, and December 11, 1976, are illegal, null and void and of no effect and for other reliefs.2. This application is really one in the series of applications which are the outcome of family disputes of the Mittals who are controlling a large number of companies and the respondent-company being the Universal Wires Ltd. is one of them. Petitioner No. 1, Mohan Lal Mittal, is the eldest brother. He along, with his son, wife and other stooges and henchmen, who are holding a block of shares in those companies, has constituted one group, and the other is constituted by the other brothers led by Inderson Mittal, Ratan Kumar Mittal, their relatives, henchmen and stooges. In the respondent-compa...
Tag this Judgment!Promode Kumar Mittal and ors. Vs. Southern Steel Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-30-1979
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas555(Cal)
Salil k. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is another application under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403, etc., of the Companies Act, 1956, in the series of litigations between Mohan Lal Mittal group and his opposing group. These applications are the outcome of family disputes as all the companies concerned in these applications are under the control and management of the Mittal family as the directors are either the members of the Mittal family or their relatives or nominees or stooges. They reveal a general pattern of running parallel management, one group trying to oust the other group from the companies in which the majority shares belong to the respondents. The present application is by Mohan Lal Mittal, the eldest brother of the Mittal family, and his sons as petitioners and the respondents are Indra Sen Mittal and the group of brothers and persons supporting him and the other directors of the company who are merely relatives, friends or stooges of the Mittal family. The petitioners allege in...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mahadevi Lohariwalla Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-19-1979
Reported in: 1988(38)ELT585(Cal)
Manash Nath Roy, J.1. The petitioners are near relations (torn) the petitioner No. 2 is a daugher of pet. (torn) No. 1. They have states to the regular (torn) under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is these (torn) that premises No. 8 Jadulal Mullick Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), which at all material times belonged and still belongs to Smt. Mahadevl Lohariwalla was searched on 5th April, 1975 by the respondent No. (torn) as Inspector of Customs along with other officers in terms of a search order No. 34/75, dated 4th April, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said search order).2. It has been alleged that such search was conducted without showing or exhibiting the said search order to Smt. Mahadevi Lohariwalla, the owner of the said premises, although she requested for the same. It appears that during the concerned search, the officers who con(torn) same seized cadmium anode, Invoice N (torn), dated 22-3-1973 of Industrial Steel Corporation of 40 Strand Ro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›