Kolkata Court July 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.
Satyendra Nath Maitra and anr. Vs. Balaram Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal206
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. 1. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether or not the impugned order of the Additional District Judge, Alipore, 24 Paraganas appointing Sri Balaram Chakraborty, the respondent, as the guardian and for giving custody of his granddaughter, Mitashree Chakraborty, is for the welfare of the said minor.2. In July, 1975 the said minor's father, Tanmoy Chakraborty, had married Mira, a daughter of the present appellants, according to the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. It appears that the said marriage of Tanmoy with Mira was against the wishes of the present appellants, who were her parents. Further, even after the said marriage, the present appellants were not willing to accept Tanmoy and consequently their relations with Tanmoy were not cordial. Tanmoy with his wife, Mira, began to live in a rented house near Dum Dum Airport. On 19th September, 1976, in a nursing home, Mira wife of Tanmoy, had given birth to a daughter, who was named Mitas...
B.K. Holdings (P.) Ltd. Vs. Prem Chand Jute Mills and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas367(Cal),84CWN876
T. K. Basu, J. 1. This is an application under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, for rectification of the share register of respondent No. 1. The application arises under the following circumstances. 2. The petitioner, B. K. (Holdings) Pvt. Ltd. some time in the month of August, 1979, purchased 1,855 ordinary fully paid-up shares of Rs. 100 each in the respondent-company from respondents Nos. 2 to 7 for valuable consideration. According to the petitioner, it became the lawful owner of the said shares and was entitled to have the shares registered in the name of the petitioner. According to the petition itself the said shares are not quoted or dealt with on any recognised stock exchange in India. 3. One of the specimen agreements for sale is annexed to the affidavit of Amar Nath Roy filed on behalf of the company and affirmed on the 8th January, 1980. The material portion for our purpose is Clause 3, which provides as follows : ' The purchaser shall pay to the seller the agreed pr...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR337(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The assessee is a company. The proceedings out of which this reference arises relate to the assessment year 1961-62. Therelevant previous year ended on March 31, 1961. During the previous year, the assessee sold 20,870 shares of Salimbong Tea Co. Ltd. to Seeyok Tea Co. Ltd. at a profit of Rs. 3,14,519. The assessee had held 20,870 shares out of 30,000 shares of the company and was the managing agent of the said company. There is no dispute that simultaneously with the sale of the shares, the assessee relinquished its managing agency of Salimbong Tea Co. Ltd. It appears from the further facts found by the Tribunal as well as the appropriate authorities that these shares were purchased by the assessee-company in the year 1937 and had been continuously held by the assessee-company, which will appear from para. 2 of the Tribunal's order at page 44 of the paper book. These shares, as we have mentioned before, were sold on February 20, 1961, which would appear from ...
Gopichand Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1980
Reported in: 85CWN431,[1981]132ITR308(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In the background of certain rather interesting facts, we are asked to answer the following questions referred to us in this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in view of the probate of the will having been granted by the High Court, it was competent for the Tribunal to go into the question as to the genuineness of the will of the deceased, Satyanarayan Agarwalla, dated October 11, 1956 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in view of Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was justified in law in holding that the said will executed by late Satyanarayan Agarwalla proved and registered in the High Court at Calcutta in the course of probate proceedings being Matter No. 156 of 1976 was not a genuine will ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in confirmin...
In Re: Krishnadas Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal11
ORDERBankim Chandra Ray, J.1. This application is directed against two orders issued by the Government, one is dated 23-7-1979 and the other is dated 3-6-1980. By these orders certain guidelines have been laid down in regard to payment of grants to students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are residing in hostels to defray their hostel charges. The attack on these two orders has been primarily directed on the ground that these two orders clearly laid down restriction that parents who have annual income of Rs. 3,600/- will not be eligible to apply for these grants in respect of their wards residing in hostels.2. This condition has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions contained in Article 46 of the Constitution and secondly it creates unreasonable restriction inasmuch as there was previously no such restriction to obtain grants in respect of students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes residing in h...
Nrisingha Maitra Vs. Shyam Sundar Chattopadhyay and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal65
ORDERDhires Chandra Chakravorti, J. 1. In the matter of an application for Stay under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. And in the matter of Judgment and decree dated 14-6-1979 and 21-6-1979 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Nadia in M. A. No. 12/78 affirming those dated 6-6-1978 and 10-6-1978 respectively passed by the learned Munsif, Ranaghat, Nadia in M. S. No. 36/76.3. And in the matter of ad interim stay of execution of the decree complained against, as referred to in the petition till the disposal of the Rule. 4. This Rule is directed against an order of the Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, at Krishnagar dismissing an appeal from the order of the learned Munsif at Ranaghal decreeing a money suit instituted for the purpose of recovering mesne profits. 5. The facts necessary for purposes of disposal of this Rule are as follows: The opposite party herein brought a suit being title suit No. 306 of 1973, against the present petit...
Sathyanarayan Bagla Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1980
Reported in: [1982]133ITR710(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, the following questions have been referred to this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the relevant deeds, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was only a shebait and not also a trustee of the Mukhram property ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the shebaitship is a property, the value of which has to be included in the principal value of the estate left by the deceased ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the residential portion of the Mukhram property occupied by the deceased passed on the death of the deceased and the value thereof was includible in the principal value of the estate left by the deceased ?' 2. In order to appreciate the questions before us, it is necessary ...
Mihir Dutta Vs. Anadi Lal Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal339
A.K. Janah, J.1. This Rule is directed against Order No. 47 dated March 2, 1979 passed in Title Suit No. 195 of 1976 by the Munsif, 4th Court, Alipore reiecting an application for amendment of the written-statement filed by the defendant No. 1. The suit was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 against the petitioner and the remaining opposite parties for declaration of title and for a permanent iniunction restraining the petitioner from making construction complained of. It was alleged that the petitioner who was a purchaser of a portion of the house was trying to put a reinforced concrete beam on a wall for the purpose of supporting the roof and this was causing damages to the plaintiff's portion of the house. In the written-statement filed by the petitioner the allegation made by the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 was denied and it was asserted that the wall in question did not belong to the plaintiff, but it was a common wall. The plaintiff deposed in the suit as P. W. 1 on Februa...
Arjun Agarwalla Vs. Baidya Nath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal354
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The parties to this application entered into a partnership agreement dated 5-1-1976 to carry on business under the name and style of Godhur Colliery Co. The said deed contained an arbitration clause as follows:--'32. If during the continuance of the partnership or any of them afterwards any dispute, differences or question shall arise between the partners hereto relating to or appertaining to such partnership of these presents, such disputes, difference and question shall be referred to arbitration of two Arbitrators one to be appointed by the First party and the Other by the other parties and in case of difference between the Arbitrators at any point the same shall be referred to a third party umpire as the case may be final and binding on the parties.'2. According to the petitioner, the partnership stood dissolved on expiry of the period of partnership on 31-12-1970 or from 17-10-1971 when the business undertaking was taken over by the Government under t...
Benaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Electricity B ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1980
Reported in: [1983]53CompCas597(Cal)
Salil K. Roy Chowdhury, J. 1. This is an application by the petitioner, Benaras Electric Light & Power Co. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as ' the company (in liquidation)', under Sections 468 and 518(1)(b) and (4) of the Companies Act, 1956, for anorder against the respondent, U. P. State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as ' the Board ', to pay to the liquidators of the company (in liquidation) a sum of Rs. 68,29,636'87 together with interest thereon at the rate, the court may think fit being the amount collected or realised by the Board between 4/5th February, 1975, till 30th of April, 1979, and all further collections made by the Board during the period 1st May, 1979, till the date of the order to be made herein from the company's (in liquidation) consumers on account of arrears of charges of electricity supplied to them by the company (in liquidation) up to the midnight of 4th/5th of February, 1975, which the respondent-Board is now holding for and on behalf of the compan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »