Kolkata Court February 1980 Judgments
In Re: T.P. Shau and Sons Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1980
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas182(Cal)
S.K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is a winding-up petition which was presented on the 7th of January, 1980, 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 leave to file, an affidavit to show cause why the winding-up petition should not be admitted. The petitioning creditor also took leave to file an affidavit-in-reply.2. The petitioning-creditor's claim arises out of sale of C. I. Scrap (Skull) at agreed rate to the company which was received by the company on the 23rd of April, 1979, and the petitioning creditor submitted its bill on the 23rd of April, 1979, for the sum of Rs. 10,831,22. The said bill was accepted without any objection and the company also issued a receipted challan and weighment certificate in respect of the said goods and accepted the bill of the petitioning-creditor. Copies of the bill, the . weighment certificate and receipted challan are annexed to the petition and the origi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise and ors. Vs. Madura Coats Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1980
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT129(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. In this appeal, the Collector of Central Excise and others have challenged the propriety of the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court making the Rule NISI obtained by the respondent company Madura Coats Ltd., absolute.2. The case of the respondent is that it is required by some of its customers, such as Dunlop India Limited, to arrange nylon or rayon yarns supplied by them in parallel rows loosely held together by cotton varns sun plied by the respondent. Such arrangement of rayon or nylon cards is called a tyrecord warpsheet. To make a warpsheet, the respondent first winds the nylon or rayon yarns supplied by its customers into bobbins. The yarns are then twisted in a twisting machine and thereafter used as warps on a loom; the cotton yarns being used at widely spaced intervals as wefts to hold the nylon or rayon yarns in position. A given length of warpsheet will have 99'4% of nylon yarns and 9.8% of cotton yarns. No manufacturing process involved in making...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Universal Consortium of Engineers P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1980
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas36(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is a winding-up petition which was presented on the 11th of September, 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 leave to file an affidavit-in-opposition to show cause why the winding-up petition should not be admitted and the petitioning-creditor also took leave to file an affidavit-in-reply. 2. Thereafter, the matter was heard on the 3rd of December, 1979, and after hearing the parties it appeared to me that this was a matter which can be adjusted mutually and with that end in view to which the respective counsel for the parties agreed, the matter was adjourned from time to time till I was informed that it could not be settled amicably between the parties. Therefore, the matter was heard at length. 3. Mr. S.B. Mukherjee, appearing with Mr. S. Pal, for the petitioning-creditor, submitted that the petitioning-creditor, who is a contractor, was appoi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Ashalata Dey and ors. Vs. Kamal Kumar Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal36
1. We having allowed an application for amendment of the plaint in the light of the amendment to Section 13 (1) (f) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by our order dated February 6, 1980, giving an opportunity to the defendant to file an additional written statement, such a written statement has been filed on February 20, 1980. We accept the additional written statement so filed and we frame an additional issue on the amendment so allowed in the following terms :-- Is the plaintiff in possession of any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation? 2. On the additional issues so framed it would be necessary to take additional evidence and as such, we refer the said additional issue to the trial court for recording the necessary finding thereon on taking additional evidence within a month from the date the trial court receives the records from this Court. 3. Let the records along with a copy of this order be forwarded to the trial court by a special messenger without any delay at t...
Tag this Judgment!United Savings and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Deputy Chief ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ607
ORDERMonoj Kumar Mukerjee, J.1. These two Rules are for quashing the proceedings of two cases initiated against the petitioners and others under Section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate Ranaghat, on complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Officer, Department of Non-Banking Companies, Reserve Bank of India.2. The material allegations in the complaints are as follows:The accused No. 1 is a limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and the other three accused persons are its Directors and are responsible for all the acts and affairs of the business and accounts of the company. In exercise of its powers under Sections 45J and 45K of the Act, the Reserve Bank of India, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) issued certain directions to Non-Banking institutions, receiving deposits, to control and regulate different activities of such institutions as contained in the Bank's...
Tag this Judgment!Sen and Co. Vs. Sm. Mani Mala Sadhu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal155,84CWN455
ORDERSudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This application for Revision is directed against the order dated 8th January 1977 passed by Shree S. C. Chakravorty, the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 5 of 1974 allowing an application under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act 1956 and striking out the defence of the petitioner against ejectment.2. The opposite party Sm. Mani Mala Sadhu instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No. 5 of 1974 against the petitioner M/s. Sen and Company for recovery of possession of two rooms on the ground floor of the premises at 130, Balaram Dey Street, Calcutta. The tenancy was being held on a rental of Rs. 34.88 paise inclusive of electric charges. After appearance the petitioner filed three applications-- one under Section 17 (1) praying for permission to deposit the current rent since April 1974, the second application was filed disputing the relation of landlord and tenant, rate of rent and the amount in ...
Tag this Judgment!international Shipping Ltd. Vs. Chandpur Jute Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas121(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. It appears that the suit was filed by the company against the defendant-company. It also appears that before the winding-up order was made in respect of the plaintiff-company, i. e., on 4th July, 1975, the suit was filed by the company in 1961, against thedefendant-company, which filed its written statement on the 3rd September, 1962. Strangely enough it appears, thereafter, nothing was done in respect of the said suit. However, the suit appeared in the special list and directions were given for filing affidavit of documents. It appears that on 12th August, 1966, the affidavit of documents; was filed by the plaintiff and thereafter, on the 4th July, 1975, the plaintiff-company was directed to be wound up and the official liquidator was directed to take possession of the assets of the company and to file a report. The official liquidator on going to the company's registered office found only the name plate of the company at the main entrance of the registere...
Tag this Judgment!Monohar Gidwany and ors. and Smt. Bhagwanti Gidwany and anr. Vs. Commi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR498(Cal)
1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an order passed on January 28, 1975, by respondent No. 1 under Section 264 of the I.T. Act.2. The petitioner's case as made out in the petition is as follows :The petitioners are the partners of M/s. Gidwany Brothers of 73, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. The petitioners have l/5th share each inthe said business. The petitioners have no other income. This writ petition relates to the assessment year 1962-63, and the relevant accounting year is the year ending March 31, 1962. In the assessment year 1962-63, M/s. Gidwany Brothers (hereinafter referred to as 'the said firm'), filed its return showing an income of Rs. 9,763 and also filed an application for registration on March 27, 1962. According to the petitioners, the share-income of the petitioners on the basis of the said return was within the exempted limit, so the petitioners had no statutory obligation to file any return. At the time...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. D. Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal95
S.C. Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 19, 1979 passed by T. K. Busu J. By and under the said judgment and order the learned trial Judge dismissed the application made by the appellant under Ss. 16, 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 inter alia for selling aside of an award dated May I, 1978 made by the arbitrator Col. Gurcharan Singh.2. By and under a contract dated 28th September 1972 executed within the jurisdiction of this Court, by and between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent agreed to construct for the appellant single man accommodation and messes and certain external services, phase IA (Left Zone) at Binaguri, District Jalpaiguri. The agreed value of the said constructions agreed to be constructed by the respondent was Rupees 1,06,77,167.65 paise. The said contract contained inter alia the following terms:--'Condition No. 9 -- Suspension of work--'The contractor shall suspend execution of the works or any ...
Tag this Judgment!Omarali Mondal Vs. Aibi Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal361,(1980)1CompLJ354(Cal)
G.N. Ray, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 1247 of 1963 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, First Court, Barasat, in Title Suit No. 2 of 1959. The plaintiff is the appellant in the instant appeal and the said suit was instituted for a declaration that the order passed in connection with Title Execution Case No. 76 of 1958 of the said First Court ofMunsif at Barasat and the kobala executed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in the said execution case were null and void and without consideration. It appears that initially a suit being Title Suit No. 112 of 1952 was instituted and the parties to the instant suit were also parties in the suit. The said suit was disposed of on the following order;'That the suit be decreed on contest against defendants 1 and 2 with costs and ex parte against the rest. Defendant No. 1 shall execute a saf kobala in respect of the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »