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.
Becker Gray and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Cal)59,[1983]139ITR293(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. 1. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1962-63.2. The assessee-company is a broker, dealer and exporter of jute goods. Its exports are mainly of carpet backing jute goods (hereinafter referred to as the wide hessian) to the USA. It started exports of this item in April, 1955, and made exports on consignment basis through its agent, M/s. White Lamb & Finlay (hereinafter referred to as WLF) up to November, 1955. During this period, WLF was paid a commission of 5 per cent. net on all exports and the assessee was reimbursing all other expenses incurred by WLF in the USA. The assessee, however, claimed that from December, 1955, its exports to WLF were on principal to principal basis. Under the new arrangement which was modified from time to time, it was further claimed that during the previous years goods were sold by the assessee to WLF on CIF basis, the assessee's selling price being 12 per cent. less than the list price in the USA. The list price...
Sudhir Chandra Ghosh Vs. the A.D.M., 24 Parganas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal275,84CWN873
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated January 25, 1968, passed by a learned single Judge of the Court in a writ proceeding which was registered as Civil Rule No. 673 (W) of 1964. The point involved in this appeal is one of law and the point is whether a notice to show cause is necessary to be given by the licensing authority prior to revoking a gun licence under Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Such a point was not raised at the trial but has been raised in this appeal as a point of law by Mr. Dutt appearing in support of this appeal. The undisputed facts may be set out very briefly as follows.2. The petitioner (appellant before us) was the holder of a gun licence bearing No. 2372 BH. In May 1962 over a certain incident a criminal case was started against the petitioner by a neighbour Byomkesh Chakrabarti who having seized the petitioner's gun d...
Mahadev Missir and ors. Vs. Basudev Missir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal9
B.N. Maitra, J.1. The plaintiff's have alleged that defendant No. 1, Mahadev Missir, is the elder brother of plaintiff No. 1, Basudeb. They hail from U.P. About 30 years ago, the plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 came to Kharagpur in the district of Midnapore in search of employment. They settled there, lived in joint mess and jointly dealt in ready-made garments, blankets, clothes etc. Mahadev was the karta of the joint family and he used to supervise the business. Subsequently, their business flourished. Out of the Ejmali fund, Basudeb and Mahadev Missir acquired properties from time to time. Some of the acquisitions were made in the name of Basudeb Missir, some in the name of Mahadev Missir, some in the name of plaintiff No. 2, son of plaintiff No. 1, and some in the names of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, sons of Mahadev. But all the properties listed in the schedule to the plaint are joint family properties. About five or six years ago, plaintiff No. l and Mahadev Missir fell out. Mah...
Pradip Kumar Dutta and ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal85
ORDERA.K. Sarkar, J.1. A partnership firm under the name and style of 'Gopal Bose Gangaram' was constituted by a deed of partnership dated 29th September, 1962 between Gopal Chandra Bose the defendant No. 1 Devilal Mehta the defendant No. 2 and one Pashupati Dutta. The shares of the partners in the partnership were Gopal Chandra Bose 6 annas 6 pies, Devilal Mehta 4 annas 3 pies and Pashupati Dutta 5 annas 3 pies enumerated in Clause VII of the said Deed of partnership. The terms of the partnership inter alia contained in the said Deed dated 29th September, 1962 tendered as Exhibit A in Clause XIV, 'Death, incapacity, insanity, insolvency, expulsion or retirement of any partner or attachment and sale of the share of any partner for his private debts shall not dissolve the firm but shall be carried on by the other persons and in case of death of any partner his legal heirs will be taken as partner or partners'.3. On 29th May, 1977 the said Pashupati Dutta died interstate leaving him surv...
income-tax Officer and ors. Vs. Shriram Bearings Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1980
Reported in: [1987]164ITR419(Cal)
M.M. Dutta, J.1. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukherji J. making the rule nisi obtained by the respondent company, Shriram Bearings Ltd., on its application under Article 226 of the Constitution absolute.2. The respondent company, formerly styled and named 'Bharat Ball Bearing Company Ltd.', has been now renamed 'Shriram Bearings Ltd.' The respondent company, with a view to starting the manufacture of cylindrical, spherical and tapered roller bearings in India, entered into a technical collaboration agreement with M/s. Nippon Soike Kabushiki Kaisha of Japan, a non-resident, hereinafter referred to as ' N. S. K. ' on April 7, 1965. The said agreement became effective from June 17, 1965. It was subsequently modified by supplementary agreements dated March 21, 1966, and May 17, 1967. The original agreement dated April 7, 1965, consists of two parts. By the first part, N. S. K. agreed to sell to the respondent company its trade secrets which means a...
Rahmat Development and Engineering Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Cal)228,[1981]130ITR602(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In the reference under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as directed by this court, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions :'1. Whether the Tribunal's finding of fact bearing on the question of penalty are perverse in that they are unsupported by and/or contrary to evidence ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order under Section 271(1)(c) ?' 2. This reference relates to four years, viz., assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70. The assessee is a registered firm and is a manufacturer of machine parts, etc. The assessee also has and, at the relevant time, had income from house properties and other sources. According to the assessee, the assessee's accounts were accepted and acted upon by the revenue from year to year and the assessee further asserts that no serious challenge was ever made to their genuineness or that those were not kept regularly in the course ...
The Tea Trading Corporation of India Vs. Pashok Tea Company Ltd. and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Cal282,85CWN8
Banerjee, J.1. These appeals are directed against an order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge making the rule absolute obtained by Pashok Tea Company Limited. The case made out by the petitioner Pashok Tea Company Ltd., is that on 12th October, 1976 two letters were received by the petitioner, each dated the 13th October, 1976, one in respect of the Pashok Tea Estate and the other in respect of Looksan Tea Estate addressed to the Company by the Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd. The said two letters are identical in nature except as to the name of the Tea Garden and the contents of the letters concerning the Pashok Tea Estate are as follows:--'By an order dated 11th October, 1976 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated llth October, 1976 the Government of India has authorised the Tea Trading Corporation of India Ltd., of 225-E, Acharya Jagadish Chandra BOMRoad, Calcutta-20 being the authorised person to take over the management of the above unit on the terms and condit...
Amulya Gopal Majumdar Vs. United Industrial Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal404
Anil K. Sen, J.1. These are the twoappeals from original decrees arising out of two suits both of which were decreed by the trial Court. The two suits though heard and disposed of independently, are interlinked, and as such, we have heard these appeals analogously. While F. A. 481 of 1972 is directed against the judgment and decree dated Sept. 5, 1970, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 119 of 1965,F. A. 127 of 1977 is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 29, 1976, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 29 of 1973. United Industrial Bank Limited, a banking company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act had instituted both the aforesaid suits and Amulya Gopal Majumdar, a common defendant (being defendant No. 6 in Title Suit No. 119 of 1965 and defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 29 of 1973) alone contested the said two suits, at their hearing and feeling aggrieved by the decrees passed th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›