Kolkata Court November 1979 Judgments
Promode Ranjan Banerjee Vs. Nirapada Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal181
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J. 1. The petitioner-appellant filed an application for pre-emption. The sllegation is that the petitioner is a co-sharer. The land appertaining to the Plot No. 3310 measuring .74 cents constitutes a holding. Satish Chandra Pramanick was the owner of another holding having an area of .74 decimals. Satish Chandra Pramanick sold his property to one Lutfar Rahaman on 5-8-1970 for Rs. 1,500/-. There was an agreement for reconveyance of the property. The right of reconveyance was transferred to the opposite party, who instituted a suit against Lutfar Rahaman for specific performance of contract and he obtained a decree. The petitioner, had no knowledge of the transfer. On 22-9-1972, he becameaware of such transfer, He filed an application for pre-emption on the footing that he was a co-sharer. Subsequently, he made a prayer for preemption on the ground of vicinage. That prayer was turned down and hence, that application was not proceeded with and it was dismissed for defau...
Tag this Judgment!Haradhan Changdar Vs. Jitendranath Hambir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal206,85CWN21
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This revisional application at the instance of the plaintiffs is directed against an order dated Feb. 28, 1979 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 52 of 1978, and raises a short though important point of law, viz., whether in a suit where a question arises as to whether a person is of is not a bargadar and the said question is referred to the appropriate Officer mentioned in Section 18(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for decision, the Court has or has not the jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders on an application for temporary injunction.2. Facts relevant for the present purpose are simple. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 upon a claim that the suit lands were in the khas possession of the plaintiffs, that the defendant No. 2 was engaged as a care-taker to supervise the cultivation of the lands from the time of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, that the defendant No. 1 who...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Kr. Chakraborty Vs. Ashutosh Bhattacharya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal108
ORDERG.N. Ray, J. 1. This Rule is directed against order dated 26th June, 1978 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 64 of 1977 by the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court at Alipore setting aside the order dated 12th July, 1977 by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Control Case No. 502 of 1970. 2. The petitioner was a monthly tenant under the opposite party in respect of the disputed premises at 2A, Kabir Road, Calcutta at a rental of Rs. 180/-per month payable according to English Calendar. It appeals that the landlord determined the tenancy of the petitioner by serving a notice of ejectment dated 11th April, 1970 which was received by the tenant on 18th April, 1970. After the expiry of the prescribed period of notice, a suit for eviction was instituted by the landlord against the said tenant being Title Suit No. 212 of 1970 pending in the 3rd Court of the learned Munsif at Alipore. The said Title Suit was subsequently re-numbered as Title Suit No. 62 of 1970 of the 2nd Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Nath Dutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal114,1980(1)CHN39,84CWN812
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This is a revisional application at the instance of the tenant-defendant arising out of a suit for eviction which has been heard on contest by the plaintiff landlord. The facts relevant for our present purposes are not in dispute. The defendant-petitioner is a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 1150/- payable according to English Calendar month. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 122 of 1977 in the second court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore for eviction of the defendant on certain grounds including a ground that the tenant-defendants had forfeited their protection under Section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) on the ground of default. In this suit the defendant filed two applications-- one under Section 17 (2) and the other under Section 17 (1) read with Section 17 (2A) of the said Act. The case made out in these applications was to the effect that when...
Tag this Judgment!Nepal Chandra Dutta Vs. Mrinal Chandra Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal184
ORDERGanendra Narayan Ray, J.1. This Rule is directed against order No. 3 dated Aug. 20, 1071, passed by the learned Munsif. 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 281 of 1979 allowing an application under Order 39, Rule 7 read with Section 151, Civil P. C. The defendant is the petitioner in the instant Rule and the said application under Order 39, Rule 7 read with Section 151, Civil P. C. was made by the plaintiff opposite party Sri Mrinal Chandra Dutta before the learned Munsif. 4th Court, Alipore. It appears that the said plaintiff opposite party instituted the said Title Suit No. 281 of 1979 for declaration that properties described in Schedules A and B to the plaint were the properties of the partnership, for accounts for partnership firm known as 'Pioneer Pictures' at Premises No. 95, Rash Behari Avenue, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Premises No. 95, Rash Behari Avenue and removal of books of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap Brij Mohan and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ266
B.N. Maitra, J.1. Shri S. N. Ghosh, Food Inspector, Corporation of Calcutta (Opposite Party No. 2) filed a petition of complaint in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court. Town Hall, Calcutta, against eight persons under Sections 7 and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Magistrate perused the petition of complaint, took cognizance of the alleged offence and issued summons against the petitioners and other accused. Hence these two Revisional Applications Nos. 1001 and 1002 of 1979.2. Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the petition of complaint shows that on 22-4-1978 the Food Inspector inspected the accused's shop (godown) located at 67/45-B, Strand Road,-and found an article of food, namely, refined rape-seed oil (imported) stored/exposed for sale. He took samples of such oil after observing all the formalities, sent one part of the sample to the Public Analyst, w...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chhayabani P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1979
Reported in: [1981]51CompCas369(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application for winding up which was presented on the 29th of January, 1979, and on the returnable date notice was directed to be served on the company along with a copy of the petition. The company appeared and took direction for filing affidavit to show cause why the petition should not be admitted. The petitioning creditors also obtained leave to file an affidavit in reply. Thereafter, the matter was mentioned several times before me for the court order but ultimately nothing happened and the matter was heard.2. The winding-up petition is presented by the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased creditor of the company. After serving a statutory notice of demand under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, dated the 28th of August, 1978, the creditor, Shri Aruendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury, died intestate on the 29th November, 1978, leaving behind the petitioners, Mrs. Sukriti Devi Chowdhurani, the widow, petitioner No. 2, Shri Arup Roy Cho...
Tag this Judgment!Garden Reach Workshop Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-14-1979
Reported in: [1981]132ITR814(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mttra, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee is a company. Its entire share capital, it is stated, has been acquired by the Govt. of India with effect from April 19, 1960.2. Before the acquisition, the assessee's business consisted mainly of repairing ships. The assessee has now extended its activities to the manufacture of rollers, cranes, river craft and sea-going vessels.3. The assessee was all along following the mercantile system of accounting. At the end of each accounting year it had some work-in-progress in respect of the contracts it had undertaken.4. Up to the accounting year September 30, 1956, the assessee had been valuing its work-in-progress at 'cost'. From the accounting year ended September 30, 1957, it changed its method of valuation. The work-in-progress, according to the changed method, was being valued at ' cost or realisable value, whichever is less '.5. In all subsequent years, the assessee was adopting t...
Tag this Judgment!Biswanath Roy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1979
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT945(Cal)
ORDERC.K. Banerji, J.1. The petitioners are pawn brokers lending money to people on hypothecation of ornaments, jewelleries and gold and silver articles. The petitioners have not received any direction under Section 6 of the Gold (Control) Act for making any declaration of gold in their possession, custody or control under the said Act. The petitioners allege that they are sought to be roped in under Section 16 of the said Act and they are made liable to make a declaration in the prescribed form as to the gold ornaments and articles in their possession, custody and control with various particulars under Form No. GS. 3 and a further declaration under Form No. GS 3A introduced by a notification No. SO 625 (E), dated 31st October, 1975. The petitioners have made the writ petition for directing the respondents not to give effect to the said notice or circular whereby the petitioners are required to make declarations under the said Act. Mr. H.N. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the petitioners c...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Chhabi Barui and ors. Vs. Debendra Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal16
ORDERSudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This application for revision is directed against the order dated 19-8-78 passed by the learned Munsif, Raghunathpur, rejecting the application under Section 38(1), of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 praying for taking accounts of the loan described in the petition and for declaring the amount due to the lender.2. The case of the petitioner was as follows:--The applicants, being in need of money, approached the Opposite Party for a loan of Rs. 2,999 and secured that loan after executing Kobala Deed in favour of the Opposite Party, who in his turn executed a Deed for reconveyance of the property mentioned in the Kobala Deed and as such the transactions by these two Deeds of the same date were in substance a loan transaction.3. The Opposite Party grew paddy in six bighas of Kanali lands from 1970 to 1977, and after deducting the cost of cultivation he had got more than what he was entitled to.4. This application was opposed by the Opposite Party on the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »