Kolkata Court December 1980 Judgments
Sm. Mayabati Halder Vs. the Rent Controller, Calcutta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal118,85CWN296
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of Basak, J. discharging the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant Sm. Mayabati Halder on her application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Ranjit Kumar Nandy, the husband of the respondent No. 2 Sm. Aparna Nandy, was a tenant of two rooms of premises No. 51/B, Mohim Halder Street, Calcutta. On February 10, 1969, the said Ranjit Kumar Nandy filed a petition of complaint under Section 31 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 before the Rent Controller, Calcutta alleging inter alia that his landlady, the said Sm. Mayabati Halder had wilfully stopped the supply of tap water to the said premises by cutting and rendering unserviceable the water connection and hadtotally blocked and dosed the drain used for the purpose of outflow of garbage water from inside the said premises. The said application was registered as R. C. Case No. 71 of 1969. The appellant entered appearance in the proceeding started on the said petition of c...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Badridas Kedia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal341
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. The appeal arises from the judgment and order of S. K. Roy Chowdhury, J. dated Dec. 24, 1974 in an application for settingaside the award dated May 4, 1973 and for referring the dispute to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Court. The award was passed for a sum of Rs. 5,091/- by the arbitrator. The learned Judge exercised powers under Section 15(b) and (c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and modified the award by changing the figure from Rs. 5,091/- to Rupees 10,181.07 and passed judgment in accordance with the said modification and correction. A decree was passed on the enhanced amount with interest.2. The facts relevant to this appeal are that by an agreement entered into in or about 1956/57 the respondent was entrusted with certain construction works of the South Eastern Railway. By letter dated September 30, 1961 the respondent requested the General Manager, South Eastern Railway to appoint an arbitrator for adjudication of disputes relating to their clai...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sankey Electrical Stampings Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Cal)260,[1982]134ITR545(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with the following question: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, andon a correct interpretation of the Explanation to Rule 1 of the SecondSchedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and of Part III ofSch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956, the Tribunal was right in holdingthat the amount of Rs. 8,30,716 shown as the additional depreciationreserve and Rs. 7,24,507 shown as included in the additional taxationreserve in the balance-sheet of the assessee-company should be regarded asreserves for the purposes of computation of the capital of the assesseeunder the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits)Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The assessment year involved is the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee is a company. It used to provide for, on cash basis, depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent. on the plant and machinery, 25 per cent. on mo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1980
Reported in: [1982]134ITR609(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1971-72 and the relevant previous year ended on 31st August, 1970.2. The assessee was a limited company having a business of manufacture and sale of sugar. In respect of the financial year 1970-71, the ITO raised the advance tax demand of Rs. 2,99,626 based on a total income of Rs. 5,44,744 under Section 210 of the Act and the demand notice Was served on the assessee on 27th May, 1970. The said demand became payable in three instalments, on 15th June, 1970, 15th September, 1970, and 15th December, 1970, and the assessee paid it actually on 15th June, 1970, 12th September, 1970, and 15th January, 1971. On 7th May, 1971, the books of account of the assessee-company were audited. On 1st April, 1972, the assessee-company filed its return of income for this assessment year on a total income of Rs. 17,78,459. The ITO completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Act on 28th February, 1974, on a total income of Rs. 2...
Tag this Judgment!James Finlay and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1980
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Cal)289,[1982]137ITR698(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference Under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 8,264 was includible in the assessment for the assessment year 1970-71, as income of the previous year ended December 31, 1969 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 55,920 was includible in the assessment for the assessment year 1970-71, as income of the previous year ended December 31, 1969 ?'2. This reference relates to the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee is a United Kingdom company which carries on business in India through its branches at Calcutta and Bombay. The Calcutta branch acts as the agents for various tea and steamer companies incorporated outside India, as also for other overseas principals. The Bombay branch acts as agents for L...
Tag this Judgment!Sishu Ranjan Dutta and anr. Vs. Bhola Nath Paper House Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas883(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 397, 398, etc., of the Companies Act, 1956, for the appointment of a Special Officer and/or Administrator and for an order or direction to be given for regulation of the conduct of the affairs of the respondent-company in future and if necessary an appropriate scheme of management to be framed by this court and also for a declaration that respondent No. 2, Bishnu Pada Dutta, respondent No. 3, Krishna Pada Dutta, respondent No. 6, Sunder Lal Dutta, and respondent No. 7,Madhu Sudhan Dutta, are not entitled to act as managing directors of the respondent-company and for various other incidental declarations and orders.2. The company is really a family concern of the Duttas, who are divided into two groups each group holding 50% shares in the company as would appear from para. 14 of the petition. The genealogical table of the family to which the Duttas belong is set out in para. 9 of the petition from which it appears that ...
Tag this Judgment!Oil India Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-ii
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: [1982]137ITR156(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred certain questions of law both at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the Revenue. In order to understand these questions, it is necessary to note that the assessment year involved is the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee had taken a loan of 3,94,433, from the Burmah Oil Co., London, in 1966, which was free of interest. It was repaid in December, 1966. In the meantime, there was a devaluation of the Indian rupee on the 6th June, 1966. As a result of the devaluation, the assessee had to pay in terms of the Indian currency Rs. 83,24,896 as against Rs. 52,50,000 received by the assessee as the original amount of loan. The extra amount of Rs. 30,74,896 was claimed by the assessee as a loss incidental to its business or as an expenditure under Section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee had also taken another loan of 10,250,000 from the Bank of Scotl...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prosad Lilha Vs. Biswanath Kothari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal51,85CWN225
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiff-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 instituted Title Suit No. 161 of 1965 for ejectment. In December, 1977, the plaintiffs applied for local inspection of the land in question. At that stage the petitioner-defendant No. 3 put in an application to decide the preliminary 'point regarding the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. The prayer was turned down. Hence this revisional application.2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the notice of ejectment was served directing the defendant to vacate the premises in question on the expiry of the 30th June, 1965. The averment was that the tenancy was according to English calendar But, in fact, the tenancy in favour of the defendant's predecessor-in-interest commenced from the 12th November, 1963. Hence the suit for ejectment was not maintainable he-cause on the face of the plaint the notice was invalid in law. In order to support that contention reference has been made to the Full Bench cas...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Srila Moitra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal126,1980(1)CHN419,(1981)1CompLJ148(Cal),85CWN219
M.M. Dutt, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant Sm. Srila Moitra has challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge has discharged the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant on her application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The appellant is admittedly the owner of premises No. 6B, Ironside Road, Calcutta which is within the limits of the Corporation of Calcutta. The land comprised in the said premises measures 1542.625 Sq. metres consisting of a building covering 233. 500 Sq. metres, a tank measuring 1162.124 Sq. metres and 147.0017 Sq. metres of land appertaining to the building. On Sep. 27, 1976, the appellant duly submitted a return under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, herein-after referred to as the Act, before the respondent No. 2, the Competent Authority, Calcutta. On August 19, 1979, the appellant gave a notice to the respondent No. 2 under Section 26 of the Act for t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Shanti Prasad JaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal199
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. This application has been taken out by Krishna Chandra Agarwal and Harish Chandra Agarwal for an order that the death of the original-plaintiff No. 2 Bijoy Chandra Agarwal be recorded and the reconstitution of the firm of Vishamitra Karyalaya and the board of the trustees of the said Rajendra Chhatrabash Samity as shown in the annexure 'B' be recorded and for other consequential reliefs analogous thereto. The present suit was filed by Krishna Chandra, Bijoy Chandra and Harish Chandra Agarwal on 29th of July, 1965 against the defendants for recovery of possession of the premises No. 14/1A, Sambhu Chatterjee Street, decree for Rs. 68,531.31 towards mesne profits and other reliefs. According to the petitioners at all material times Harish Chandra, Krishna Chandra and Bijoy Chandra Agarwal carried on business in co-partnership under the name and style of Vishamitra Karyalaya at 12, B. B. D. Bag. The said firm is a registered firm. On 8th of June, 1974 the said Bij...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »