Kolkata Court December 1980 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhagabati Prasad Tantia and ors. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas56(Cal),85CWN216
N.C. Mukherjee, J. 1. These two revision cases arise on applications under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code and are for quashing all proceedings under Section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. Case No. C/604 of 1978, out of which Criminal Revision No. 115 of 1980 arises, is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta. Case No. C/786 of 1978, out of which Criminal Revision No. 116 of 1980 arises, is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta. In both the cases, on behalf of the petitioners, it was contended before the learned Magistrate that cognizance was wrongly taken as the petitions of complaint were filed beyond the period of limitation. The learned Magistrates negatived the contentions and hence, the Rules. In the first case, the learned Magistrate found that the offence, complained of, is a continuing offence and as such Section 468 of the Code is not applicable. In the other case, it was found on facts that ...
Smt. Sushila Devi Rampuria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: [1982]137ITR272(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1963-64 and 1965-66 the following questions have been referred :' 1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that it has not been established that the assesses chose to forgo the interest from the two debtors, namely, M/s, Chitrabani and M/s. Chitralok, on ground of commercial expediency and the circumstances in which the interest was forgone are shrouded in mystery, arp based on mere conjecture, surmise nnd suspicion and/or are perverse? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that there was no oral or documentary evidence to show that M/s. Chitralok was financially unsound at any particular point of time and the reasons for making the advances was not substantiated is based on mere conjecture and. surmise and/or is perverse ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was 'justified in law in ...
Collector of Central Excise and ors. Vs. Dunlop India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT398(Cal)
M.M. Dutta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Central Excise Authorities and the Union of India against the judgment of Masud J., dated December 12, 1974. By the said judgment the learned Judge, though he discharged the Rule Nisi obtained by the respondent, Dun-lop India Limited, on its application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed that the appellants would deal with the pending applications of the respondent regarding levy of excise duty under Section 4(a) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy and Anr. v. Voltas Limited : 1973ECR60(SC) . The respondent has also filed a cross-objection assailing the propriety of the judgment discharging the Rule Nisi.2. The case of the respondent, Dunlop India Limited, is that it is a manufacturer of diverse excisable goods including rubber tyres and tubes for motor vehicles, cycles and other vehicles and also of various rubber products...
Shiva Glass Works Co. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1980
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT365(Cal)
P.K. Banerjee, J.1. In these rules the petitioner Shiva Glass Works Company Ltd. challenged the show cause notice given by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Inspection Unit No. 1, Calcutta X Division. The said show cause notice is in the following terms :'To, M/s. Shiva Glass Works Co. Ltd.,128, B.T. Road, Calcutta.L. 4. no. 1/Glass/61(1)Head Office at 27, Brabourne Road, Calcutta.Gentlemen,Whereas it appears that M/s. Shiva Glass Works Co. Ltd., cleared the excisable goods (Glass and Glasswares) manufactured in their factory without declaring the correct assessable values of different items in their price lists effective during the period from 1-9-72 to 31-5-73 and charged extra amount as additional transportation, special packing, loading and unloading charges' in respect of each and every individual item of sale to their different customers (including wholesale dealers) in their separate set of sale bills and whereas it appears that proper Central Excise Duties were not paid und...
Purnananda Banerjee Vs. Sm. Swapna Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal123,(1981)1CompLJ220(Cal)
M. M. Dutt, J. 2282727(1)3615115215322836153619(1)(f)State of Orissa, Shri Ambica Mills, State of Mysore, Union of India, 228228131A228228228361519(1)(f)3615(1)3615(1)15(1)3636363615361515State of Mysore, 361539423615363622836228228134AA.N. Sen, C.J....
Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, 'J' Ward and Anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR405(Cal),[1981]7TAXMAN212(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellant, M/s. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., has challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned single judge of this court dated March 9, 1976 (Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ITO : [1978]112ITR906(Cal) ), whereby the learned single judge discharged the rule nisi obtained by the appellant on its application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellant is an assessee under the I.T. Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1970-71, the appellant filed an estimate of its income Under Section 212 of the I.T. Act at Rs. 10 lakhs and the income-tax payable thereon was estimated at Rs. 5,50,000. After adjusting the amount of income-tax deductible under Sections 192 to 195 of the I.T. Act, the balance amount of tax was estimated by the appellant at Rs. 5,06,950. On December 6, 1969, the appellant filed another estimate of its income under Section 212 of the I.T. Act, estimating its income at Rs. 7 lakhs and the income-tax payable thereon was Rs. 3,85,000, aft...
Chunilal Mulji Motani and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR166(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred to this court:' I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in their conclusion that the indenture of settlement dated 21st May, 1960, was a revocable transfer within the meaning of Section 61, Section 62 and Section 63 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2, If the answer to the first question is in the negative and in favour of the assessee, whether the inclusion and assessment of the entire income from the trust property known as ' Kamani Mansion ' at No. 3, Allenbery Road, Calcutta, in the hands of the settlor for the assessment years 1967-68, and 1968-69 is justified and right in law? '2. This reference relates to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. It appears that one Shri Girdharilal Hansraj Kamani had executed a registered indenture of settlement on May 21, 1960, settling on trust for pu...
Traders Syndicate Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal223
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff against the defendant for loss of goods due to misdelivery and/or nondelivery of the same by the Eastern Railway. It is alleged in the plaint that the goods were loaded at Dutta Pukur to be delivered to the consignee, Sub-Divisional Officer (P.W.D.), Mal Construction Sub-Division, under RR No. A 116018 dated 28-6-64. The claim in the suit is for decree for Rs. 14428.80 and for other reliefs. In the written statement filed in the suit, the defendant, while denying the allegations in the plaint, took a preliminary point in paragraph 15 thereof that in view of the provisions in amended Section 80 of the Indian Railways Act 1890, this Court should not and could not entertain the suit inasmuch as the goods were delivered at a place and its destination were both outside the jurisdiction of this court.2. When the suit was called on for hearing, it was submitted that the question of jurisdiction should be decided first as a prelimin...
A.B. Chaudhuri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal225
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment passed by a single Judge of this Court disposing of a rule earlier obtained by Sri Arun Bikash Chaudhuri, the appellant herein, on a writ application. The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal may briefly, be stated as follows:The appellant sat for the Matriculation examination of the University of Calcutta, the respondent No. 2 herein, in the year 1938 and in his application form stated that his age at the relevant time was 16 years and 11 months. On being successful Matriculation Certificate No. 11151 dated June 9, 1938 was issued to him by the University authority. It was certified therein that on March 1, 1938 his age was 16 years and 11 months. In 1949 the appellant joined the Indian Police Service and was attached to the West Bengal Cadre; and in 1974 he was promoted to the post of Special Inspector General of Police in the Special Police Establishment of the Go...
Santosh Kr. Mitra Vs. Kalipada Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal278
B.C. Chakrabakti, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment disposing of Misc. Case No. 41 of 1962 and Misc. Case No. 10 of 1963 of the 6th Court of learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore.2. The two Misc. Cases arose out of two independent applications for pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act arising out of Title Suit No. 34 of 1959 of the said Court.3. Sm. Panchanani Dasi defendant No. 4 in the said suit was the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 41 of 1962. The other Misc. Case No. 10 of 1963 was filed by Kalipada Das, defendant No. 3,4. The case of the two petitioners are practically identical. Their case is that the disputed properties namely premises No. 27/1A, Srish Chowdhury Lane, and 6A, Tarak Bose Lane form part of the same house and was the joint family dwelling house of Binodini Dasi and Tinkari Dasi. Binodini made a gift of her 8 annas shares in favour of Manmoth (the original plaintiff) who possessed the same jointly with his sisters, - Shyamasundar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »