Kolkata Court July 1979 Judgments
Mrs. Debi Bhaduri Vs. Kumarjib Bhaduri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal1
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J.1. This matter has been referred to a Full Bench under the provisions of Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the Appellate Side Rules by a Bench consisting of Anil K. Sen and B. C. Chakrabarti, JJ.2. On August 14, 1974 the respondent in this appeal instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 375 of 1974 (since renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 24 of 1976) in the 9th Court of the Additional District Judge at Alipore against the appellant. In the plaint a decree for judicial separation was originally claimed. Later on, the plaint was amended and a decree for divorce was asked for.3. On May 27, 1976 the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 came into force amending certain provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.4. On July 19, 1977 the trial court passed a decree for divorce.5. On September 6, 1977 the present appeal was preferred.6. Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it originally stood, was as follows:--'All decrees and orders made by t...
Tag this Judgment!Khatun Bibi and ors. Vs. Sm. Moni Mala Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal364
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by Shri Satyanarayan Bhattacherjee, the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, reversing those of dismissal passed by Shri P. Dulta, the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court at Alipore and remanding the case for fresh trial after giving the plaintiff appellant an opportunity for local investigation for relayment of her deeds of title for establishing identity with the suit plots.2. The plaintiff commenced the suit for partition and for recovery of possession and mesne profits on the following averments:--One Abdul Hakim auction purchased 8 annas share of the suit lands being C. S. Plots Nos. 391 and 392 appertaining to khatian No. 469 of mouza Sultanpur P. S. Dum Dum in Execution Case No. 516 of 1921 of the Court of Munsif, Sealdah and got the sale certificate. The suit lands were said to be Items Nos. 2 and 8 at the sale certificate. The remaining 8 annas share of those lands belonged t...
Tag this Judgment!State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. the Jay Shree Chemicals an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal374
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 5,89,175.50 on the allegations that pursuant to a verbal agreement in the year 1965 with the defendant, the plaintiff supplied Sul-pher and Rochphosphate to the defendant on terms that the provisional price would be paid by the defendant before supply. The final total price of each consignment would be determined thereafter. The plaintiff would keep a mutual, open and current account between the parties and the account would be adjusted on 31st March every year. Upon adjustment of the provisional price with the final price, the balance found due would be paid either by the defendant to the plaintiff or by the plaintiff to the defendant depending on the result of the adjustment. The unpaid balance would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. These terms were set out in paras 4 and 5 of the plaint. It was further alleged that the transactions were carried on between 1765-70 an...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhinendra Nath Patra Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1979
Reported in: [1980]122ITR123(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Sudhinendra Nath Patra, the petitioner herein, was assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1969-70, on income derived from house property, business in gold and gold ornaments, interest, dividend and commission earned as a life insurance agent. For the said assessment year the petitioner had paid an advance tax of Rs. 600 on an estimated total income of Rs. 9,000 under Section 212(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.2. The petitioner filed his return of income on or about the 19th September, 1969, and the assessment was completed on the 29th March, 1972, on a total income determined at Rs. 3,37,770 in which Rs. 2,46,148 was added as deemed income under Section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. On successive appeals preferred before the AAC and the Tribunal, the petitioner obtained relief and his total income for the said assessment year was finally determined at Rs. 1,56,170.3. As the advance tax paid by the petitioner fell short of the actual tax payable by the prescribed per...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Kumar Hazra and ors. Vs. Rathindra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal117
ORDERD.C. Chakravorti, J.1. This Rule is directed against Order No. 34 dated December 1, 1977 whereby the learned Munsif rejected the petition for substitution made by the present petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.2. The facts relevant for the purposes of this case are as follows. Two brothers, namely, Ram Mohit and Ram Mohan, filed a suit for eviction against the present opposite party. When the suit was still pending said Ram Mohit died on June 3, 1977 leaving a will whereby he is said to have appointed the present petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 the executors to his will. On July 27, 1977 the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in their capacity of executors made an application of being substituted in place of Ram Mohit. The application was opposed by the present opposite party before the Court below. The learned Munsif rejected that application.3. Mr. Shyama Prasanna Roy Choudhury, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule, contends that having regard to the provisions of Sections 211, 213 and 30...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Amar Prosad Gupta Vs. Arun Kumar Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Cal367,84CWN281
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for eviction.2. The case of the plaintiff was that on a partition among the plaintiff, his brother Rabi Prosad Gupta and the heirs of his other two brothers, Ramaprosad and Hariprosad, the shop rooms comprised in premises No. 1/A, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta were allotted to the plaintiff and his said brother Rabi Prosad Gupta, the major portion being allotted to the plaintiff and a small portion to his said brother Rabi Prosad. It was the plaintiff's case that after the partition, it was mutually agreed by and between the parties that the defendant who was a monthly tenant in respect of the said premises under all the co-sharers from before the partition at a monthly rent of Rs. 902 would pay to the plaintiff Rs. 800 per month as rent with effect from the 1st day of May, 1962 for the portion of the shop rooms allotted to him. The defendant paid rent to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 800 per m...
Tag this Judgment!Ultra Engineering Industries P. Ltd. Vs. Spintex Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal159
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. This is an application for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the ground that no part of the plaintiff's cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court; in the alternative for stay of the suit on the ground of balance of convenience.2. The petitioner's case before me is that pursuant to a contract entered into at Faridabad and/or Delhi there have been series of transactions by and between the plaintiff and the defendant The entire transaction has taken place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Part payments have been made outside the jurisdiction of this court; as such no part of the cause of action of the plaintiff has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover in the plaint itself, the plaintiff has pleaded various transactions whereby the defendant supplied various goods to the plaintiff; as a result a huge sum of money is due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant and said trans...
Tag this Judgment!Euresian Equipments and Chemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Collector of C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Cal188,1979(2)CHN248,1980(6)ELT38(Cal)
A.N. Sen, J.1. At the hearing of this appeal from the judgment and order passed by P. K. Banerjee, J. on the 23rd of March, 1973, discharging the rule and dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sabyasachi Mukharji, and Murari Mohan Dutt, JJ., the Division Bench noted that from the contentions made on behalf of the parties before them the following points arose for consideration :--(1) Whether, by virtue of Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, the provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 are attracted for the contravention of Section 12 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, in relation to goods which had been exported beyond India. (2) Whether, when goods have been exported beyond India such goods may be said to be 'export goods' as defined in Section 2 (19) of the Customs Act, 1982 and liable to confiscation under Section 113 for the purp...
Tag this Judgment!incheck Tyres Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1979
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT169(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Incheck Tyres Ltd. the petitioner in these proceedings seeks to challenge three orders, being under No. S-85-4/72R dated 12th June, 1972 of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), No. 1416 of 1973 dated 17th April, 1973, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta and No. 1393 of 1974 dated 30th March, 1974 of the Joint Secretary, Government of India.2. The facts leading upto the present proceedings are as follows :The petitioner is a company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on business, inter alia, as manufacturers of rubber tyres. For the purpose of such manufacture it imports insoluble sulphur under the trade name 'crystex N-Insoluble Sulphur' (hereinafter referred to as the said product) in bulk quantities. Under a notification issued by the Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue & Insurance) being Notification No. 120-Customs, dated 20th August 1965, sulphur including the said product was stated to...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Durgapur Projects Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1979
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas320(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is a winding-up petition which was presented on 11th June, 1979, and direction was given for serving the notice along with a copy of the petition on the company. The company appeared and took direction for filing affidavit.2. The petitioning creditor's claim is for price of goods sold and delivered. It appears that previous to the present purchase order being placed by the company with the petitioning creditor there were negotiations for supply of a settled quality of goods but the said contract was cancelled. Be that as it may, those are not relevant or admissible for the purpose of the present application. The letter dated 19th October, 1978, by which the company asked the petitioning creditor to deliver 200 mm. of Conveyor Belts which were urgently required by the company and the formal purchase order was to be handed over to the petitioning creditor on or about 21st October, 1978, is set out hereunder, copy of which is annexed to the petition and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »