Kolkata Court April 1979 Judgments

Cementation Patel Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Kolkata

Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of levy of sales tax on Cementation Patel (Durgapur), Burdwan, in the accounting periods being the four quarters ending respectively on 31st March, 1958, 31st March, 1959, and 31st March, 1960.2. Cementation Patel (Durgapur), the applicant, carrying on business as a contractor was at the material time registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. It was contended by the applicant in the various assessments to sales tax before different Commercial Tax Officers, inter alia, that it was not exigible to sales tax because its transactions consisted only of transfer of materials to its member-contractors and its own sub-contractors in connection with one particular work, namely, the construction of a steel plant at Durgapur. It was contended that such transactions were not sales and, in any event, the same had not been entered into in the course of any transaction of sale. The Commercial Tax Officers noted that payments...

Orissa Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Forest Development Corporat ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1979Cal261

ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. On 18-1-1978, the plaintiff instituted the above suit against the defendants for specific performance of the agreement dated 12-7-1977, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 1, its servants, agents and assigns from forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- under a Bank guarantee No. 19/77 given by the defendant No. 2 on 9-7-1977, perpetual injunction against the defendant No. 2 from making any payment in terms of the said Bank guarantee, decree for Rs. 93,691.92, Rs. 45,850/- and Rs. 35,836/- against the defendant No. 1 in terms of paragraphs 6, 7 and 10 of the plaint, alternatively an enquiry into damages, declaration that the notice dated 2-7-78 issued by the defendant No. 1 was null and void, Temporary injunction, receiver, etc.2. The facts alleged in the plaint were that on 12-7-1977 the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement in writing whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase 8000 metric tons of Sal seeds ...

Sanatam Mitra Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1982(10)ELT320(Cal)

Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This is an application for contempt and it has been filed by the petitioner who succeeded in the Rule, being Civil Rule No. 1197(W) of 1973 which was issued at the instance of the petitioner on his application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of electric fans and blowers with and without electrical device. The blowers without any electric device were not liable to excise duty under Item No. 33 of the schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 till June 30, 1971 when the said item was amended. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the action of the respondents is not refunding to him the excise duty charged and realised by them on the blowers manufactured by the petitioner without electrical device. The Rule Nisi was made absolute by me and it was directed that if any excise duty had been realised from the petitioner in respect of the blowers manufactured by him, which were without any electrical device, the respondent ...

Sachindra Nath Bhanja Chowdhury Vs. Labangalata Sarkar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1980Cal121

Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution.2. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in conspiracy with the defendant No. 4, set up the defendant No. 3 to lodge a false complaint before the Noapara Police Station to the effect that on May 11, 1963 he (the plaintiff) had shown his private parts and had also abused her (the defendant No. 3) in filthy language. On the basis of the said complaint a criminal proceeding was instituted which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. Due to the institution of the prosecution, the plaintiff was suspended from his service with the Ichapore Rifle Factory and during the period of suspension he was allowed to draw only subsistence allowance at Rs. 102-50 p. per month. That apart, the plaintiff had to lose over-time allowance pnd such loss was tentatively put at Rs. 200/-. The plaintiff had to defend himself by engaging a lawyer and on that accou...

Abdul Kafi Khan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1979Cal354

ORDERM.N. Roy, J.1. In this Rule, the petitioner has impeached the charge-sheet in Annexure 'B', the enquiry report in Annexure 'G' and the show cause notice in Annexure 'H', contending them to be bad, illegal, improper and issued in violation of principles of natural justice apart from contending that they were also in contravention of Railway Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and also of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner has stated to have been appointed by the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway respondent No. 3 on 23rd Jan. 1959 and at the time material to the issue of the Rule, he was working as a Switchman at Kechki in Bihar. He has also claimed to be permanent Class III staff. It appears that on 10th March 1974 Up Barwadih-Dehri-on-Sone-Mughalsarai Passenger, the driver of which was one Shri Musafit and Shri N. K. Pandey, was the guard, left Mangra Station and reached up Loop Line at Kechki at ab...

Bikash Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Smt. Nanda Rani Mukherjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1979Cal358

N.C. Mukherji, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri S. K. Ghosh, Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta dated 28th Jan. 1976, in Title Suit No. 91 of 1971. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Court.2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of khas possession upon declaration of title and for other reliefs. The dispute is in respect of two properties, namely, premises No. 36, Nabin Sarkar Lane, and 45, Baghbazar Street, Calcutta. The former is a two storeyed pucca building and the latter is a thika tenancy consisting of about 10 rooms of which some are in the occupation of tenants. It is the plaintiffs' case that both the suit properties originally belonged to one Benoy Mukherjee who died in 1946 leaving his two sons Bijoy and Basanta as his sole heirs. Basanta died unmarried in Aug. 1969 leaving his brother Bijoy as his sole heir. On Bijoy's death in 1970 his sons Bikash and Bivash, plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and the children and widow of B...

Abdul Rashid and ors. Vs. Nausher Ali

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1979CriLJ1158

ORDERMonoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. Upon a complaint filed by the opposite party, Sk. Nausher Ali, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh took cognizance of the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the I.P.C. and decided to hold an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr. P.C. Accordingly he called upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses as enjoined by the proviso to Sub-section (2) thereof. On being satisfied from the statements of the witnesses recorded therein, that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding, the learned Magistrate issued process against the 11 petitioners under Sections 395/397 of the I.P.C. All the accused persons appeared before the learned Magistrate and thereafter moved this Court and obtained the present. Rule for quashing the proceeding of the said case.2. Mr. Poddar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the materials on record do not make out a prima facie case under Sections 395/ 397 of the I...

Assam Roadways Vs. National Insurance Co. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1979Cal178,83CWN560

N.C. Mukherji, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri M. Roy, Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta dated 11th January, 1977 in Money Suit No. 360 of 1971, The defendant is the appellant in this Court.2. The plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 18,091.14 from the defendant-carriers by way of compensation or reimbursement for damage or shortage caused, to the consignment in suit. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff No. 2 M/s. Aidaupukhuri Tea Estates (Pr.) Ltd., a private Limited Company having its registered office at Shibsagar in the State of Assam is the owner of a Tea Garden as mentioned above, On 13-8-68 the above Company entrusted with the defendant carrier M/s. Assam Roadways .160 chests of tea in sound and well packed condition for carriage by road from Shibsagar to Calcutta for delivery at G. Patel's godown at premises No. P-4/4, Watgung Siding. The above consignment was covered by three garden invoices and in acknowle...

The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Khudiram Dutt and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1979Cal190

M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is at theinstance of this Insurance Company andit is directed against the award datedAugust 27, 1975 of the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal, Calcutta. 2. On February 8, 1971 at about 8 A.M., the respondent was knocked down by a lorry bearing No. WBL 8468 near the junction of Diamond Harbour Road and Mayurbhanj Road, Calcutta. The respondent suffered compound fracture' of right leg and several other injuries on his person. He was treated in the Sambhu Nath Pandit Hospital as an indoor patient from February 8, 1971 to May 29, 1971 and also from June 19, 1971 to July 3, 1971. He made an application under Section 110A(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 praying for payment of compensation. It was alleged that he incurred expenditure of Rs. 5,000/- for his treatment. Further, it was alleged that the lorry in Question was driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and' it suddenly came from behind and knocked the respondent down Who was on a cycle...

Mathura Prasad Saraf and ors. Vs. Company Law Board and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1979]49CompCas371(Cal)

Samarendra Chandra Deb, J.1. This rule under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 8th October, 1968, rejecting the application made by the petitioners under Section 372(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, and also against the proceedings started against them under Section 374 of the aforesaid Act.2. The petitioners are directors of Belgachi Tea Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' the company ') incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinfater referred to as 'the Act'). The company had made investments in other companies as shareholders of those companies including a company known as -Nera Terai Association Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the subsidiary company '). The company had 7,120 ordinary shares of the subsidiary company, nominal value of the said shares being Rs. 71,200. The authorised capital of the subsidiary company was Rs. 8,00,000 out of which share capital was subscribed to the extent of Rs. 7,20,000 which was fully paid up. The subsid...