Kolkata Court April 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.
Nadia Zila Parishad and anr. Vs. Santimay Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ531
ORDERN.C. Mukherji, J.1. This Rule arises on an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order dated 21st of February, 1979 passed by Shri S. N. Banerjee, District Judge Nadia in Misc. Case No. 20 of 1978 arising out of Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 1977. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows:Opposite Party No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 131 of 1974 in the Court of Munsif, Krishnagar for a declaration that he is a permanent staff of the petitioner No. 1 and permanent injunction to the effect that the petitioners and opposite party No. 2 have no authority to change and/or in any way deal with or modify the conditions of service of the said opposite party No. 1. The plaintiff obtained an order of ad interim injunction, but the same was ultimately vacated. He preferred an appeal against the said order. In the said appeal an application was filed for ad interim injunction. The said application was supported by an affidavit sworn on 2-6-77...
Kissori Lal Nag and ors. Vs. Tinkari Chandra Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal204
B.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiff has alleged that he is the owner of the disputed tank fishery. The defendants are tenants at will only in respect to the Jalkar Jama in that tank excluding its banks. They have no right to the sub-soil. He wants to rear fish in that tank. The defendants did not pay any rent regarding that Jalkar from 1361 B. S. at the rate of Rs. 4/- per year. The tenancy was determined by a notice to quit. But the defendants did not give up that Jalkar right. Hence the suit for ejectment, for recovery of arrears of rent and also for recovery of mesne profits.2. The defendants filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's allegations. The defence is that the suit is not maintainable and the same is time-barred. The landlord's right of the plaintiff vested in the State and hence they have become direct tenants under the State of West Bengal. They are not defaulters. They have no Jalkar right but they are tenants with respect to the tank along with the banks and they a...
Balmukund Mundhra Vs. Shew Prosad Haralka and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal331
THE COURT: Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner's case as laid down in the petition, which is not disputed by the respondents, who are appearing before me as they have entered caveat to the present application, that by a deed of partnership dated 6th March 1977 the parties to the proceedings entered into a partnership to carry on business as exhibitors of cinematographic films under the name and style New Cinema Co. under the terms and conditions contained in the said partnership deed. It is also admitted that the said partnership was at will and a notice of dissolution has been served on the respondents, some of them are in Calcutta within the jurisdiction, for dissolution of the said partnership by a letter dated 26th March 1980 and it is stated in para 10 of the petition that the petitioner is entitled to the properties of the said partnership firm after payment of the debts and liabilities thereof and to have th...
Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: [1981]131ITR412(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. The question sought for in this application is as follows: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax had exceeded his powers in entertaining the additional ground of appeal taken before him in respect of the claim for deduction of a sum of Rs. 11,54,995 representing liability for raw jute purchase tax ' 2. The question arises under the following circumstances: The assessee is a Govt. Corporation engaged in jute industry. The assessment year is 1974-75, and the relevant accounting period is April 1, 1972, to June 30, 1973. The liability on account of raw jute purchase tax amounting to Rs. 11,54,995 had arisen during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under reference. However, it was an admitted fact that the assessee had neither furnished necessary details nor claimed deduction of the said claims before the ITO...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajeshwari Distributors (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Cal)394,[1980]125ITR618(Cal),[1982]49STC169(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, we are faced with the question, viz. :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in, holding that the provision of Rs. 1,84,734 for sales tax liability was allowable as a deduction in computing the business income of the assessee-company '2. The assessee is a private limited company and the reference relates to the assessment year 1971-72. For this assessment year, the assessee-company claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,84,734 on account of sales tax liability on sales of ' Kuil ' and ' Star ' brand matches. The ITO, however, was of the view that since under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, sales tax was not payable on sale proceeds of matches made or processed otherwise than in a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948, and matches in which match sticks were made from bamboo splints came under that category, sales tax was not attracted o...
Tax Recovery Officer and ors. Vs. Md. Ismail and anr. and Mussamet Zul ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1980
Reported in: 84CWN601,[1980]125ITR735(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. In this appeal, the revenue has challenged the propriety of the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji J., whereby the learned judge made the rules nisi obtained by the respondents on their applications under Article 226 of the Constitution absolute.2. On September 2, 1960, a sale proclamation was issued by the Certificate Officer and Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganos, under Rule 46 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, in respect of three certificate cases, for the sale of premises Nos. 14/7 and 14/8, Jhowtola Road, Calcutta, for recovery of arrears of income-tax of the certificate-debtor, one Sheikh Mohammed Yaqoob. On November 7, 1960, the respondents filed three petitions of objections to the sale of the said two properties claiming the same to belong to them and not to the certificate-debtor. The Certificate Officer directed the ITO to submit a report on the said claim petitions. It appears that by his order dated May 27, 1961, the Certificate Office...
Kumardhubi Fire Clay and Silica Works Ltd. and Hindustan Copper Limite ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1980
Reported in: 84CWN610,[1980]123ITR899(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. The appellant in each of these two appeals is a company and they have challenged the propriety of the judgment of P.K. Banerjee J. discharging the rules nisi obtained by them on their respective applications under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellants carry on business, inter alia, as manufacturers and exporters of the refractories and refractory materials including calcined kyanite. Under Sub-section.(1) of Section 280ZC of the I.T. Act, 1961, a person, who exports any goods or merchandise out of India after 28th February, 1965, and receives the sale proceeds thereof in India in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and the rules made thereunder, is entitled to a tax credit certificate for an amount calculated at a rate not exceeding 15% on the amount of such proceeds. Under Sub-section (2) of 280ZC, the goods or merchandise in respect of which a tax credit certificate shall be granted under Sub-section (1) and the rate at which the am...
Gokul Chandra Dey and Sons Vs. Joint Secretary, Government of India an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ401
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by one Gokul Chandra Dey & Sons a partnership firm which carries on business dealing in sugar. The petitioner has a licence for the purpose under the relevant provisions of law. The petitioner states that the petitioner buys sugar from various large sugar dealers of West Bengal on principal to principal basis. The sugar so purchased was then sold by the petitioner in wholesale to the various small dealers. The petitioner challenges in this application, under Article 226 of the Constitution, mainly the order dated 17th December, 1979 being Annexure D to the petition, which is an order called Sugar (Retention and Sale by Recognised Dealers) Order, 1979. As this is the subject matter of main challenge, it is material to set out the relevant portion of the said order. But before I do so, it will be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government has...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›