Kolkata Court November 1981 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.
United Flour Mills Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Corportion of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ578
N.C. Mukherji, J.1. This Rule arises on an application Under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code for quashing a proceeding being Case No. ID of 1977 Under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with S, 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 pending before Shri S. K. Kar, Metropolitan Magistrate. 4th Court, Calcutta. This Rule is also against an order passed on Mar. 22, 1977 rejecting the petitioners' application for discharge in the aforesaid case and all subsequent orders passed in the aforesaid case.2. On Mar. 2, 1977 one Soumya Bikash Bose, Food Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta filed a petition of complaint Under Section 16(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7 of the Act before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The allegation was that the complainant inspected the shops/ godown Manufactory of the accused on April 10, 1976 and found Atta exposed for sale. Some quantity of the said Atta was purchased. Some part was sent to the publi...
Sumani Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. Super Forging Steel Sales Pvt. Ltd. and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal136
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The Sumani Ferro Alloys Ltd., the plaintiff instituted this suit under Order 37 of the Civil P, C. against Super Forging Steel Sales Private Limited and the Bank of India, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, claiming a decree for Rs. 3,62,131/- with interests and costs. The plaintiff's cause of action is based on several Hundies, all drawn by the plaintiff on the defendant No. 2 and accepted by the defendant No. 1 in March, 1679. It is alleged that the said Hundies matured in April and May 1979 when it is alleged they were presented by the defendant No. 2 to the defendant No, 1 for payment but were dishonoured. 2. On or about the 25th Aug., 1980 it Is alleged that the defendant No. 2 endorsed in favour of the plaintiff the said Hundies for value received.3. The plaintiff claims to have become the holder of the said Hundies in due course and alleges that it again presented the said Hundies to the defendant No. 1 for payment but the same were again dishonoure...
Dilip Kumar Pyne Vs. S.N. Das Gupta, Assistant Collector of Customs fo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1981
Reported in: 1989(24)LC95(Calcutta),1988(33)ELT264(Cal)
Amitava Dutta, J.1. This Revisional application is directed against an order dated 18-10-1979 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in Case No. 1807-C of 1972 rejecting the petition dated 6-11-1978 filed on behalf of the accused praying for his discharge.2. On 3-10-1972 the complainant opposite party No. 1 Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive) filed a petition of complaint against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate on the allegation that the petitioner had committed offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act and under Section 85 of the Gold Control Act read with Sections 31 and 55 of the said Act. The Prosecution case is that on 27-9-1970 some Custom Officers searched the jewellery shop under the name and style of 'S.B. Pyne' and Co. of the petitioner and his partner at 342, Netaji Subhas Road, Howrah and recovered four cut pieces of gold weighing 17 tollas and 8.5 annas one of which bore foreign markings indicating that it was smuggled and thereby the pe...
Smt. Ina Kar Vs. Amitava Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal149
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiffhas alleged that the defendant, Amitava Ghosh, was her tenant regarding the disputed premises at 2E, Kala Chand Sanyal Lane, Shyampukur, Calcutta, at amonthly rental of Rs. 250 payable according to the English Calendar. The defendant is a defaulter from November, 1973. He has illegally sublet or transferred a portion of that flat without her permission after the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, came into force. She requires the said premises for her own use and occupation, The defendant's tenancy was duly determined by a notice to quit, The suit is for ejectment. 2. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's allegations and stated that he did not transfer or sublet the premises in question. 3. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court disbelieved the plaintiff's version, held that the defendant was not a defaulter and the plaintiff did not require the premises in question for her own use and occupation. He al...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chillidhary Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR517(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji J.1. In the order of the Tribunal it was observed as follows :' If we look into the facts of the present case we find that the facts are almost identical except with the difference that in the case before us the assessee is not growing tea on the lands lying fallow but it is raising some other crops. But we do not think that this fact would have any material bearing in regard to the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The assessee's activity of raising tea, selling tea and also the activity of raising paddy and other crops on the fallow land for the time being constituted an indivisible business. The accounts are all consolidated and the management is the same. There is no separate activity as such. All constitute a single activity. In such a situation, there can be no manner of doubt that the indirect expenses which are incurred in the head office and the branch office relating to the whole 'activity willhave to be allowed in full without ...
Khudiram Mukherjee Vs. Samsul Bari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Cal303,86CWN196
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the IN Letters Patent directed against the judgment and decree dated January 5, 1971, passed by a learned single Judge of this court allowing a second appeal, being Second Appeal No. 801 of 1956. By the judgment under appeal the learned single Judge having set, aside a concurrent decree for recovery of possession passed by the two courts below, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. The appeal involves a short point as to whether acceptance of rent from a lessee of non-agricultural land after the expiry of the lease but for a period during which the lessee was protected against eviction under the provisions of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 1940 Act) by the landlord would constitute a fresh tenancy by holding over or not. The material facts are not in dispute and may be set out briefly as follows:--The defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as th...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Mehra Brothers (P) Ltd. (In Liqn.) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Cal335,[1983]54CompCas541(Cal)
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. The present suit had been filed by the Punjab National Bank in the year 1960 against Mehra Brothers (Private) Ltd. (now in liquidation), Prem Pal Mehra, Master Nandalal and Raj Kumar Mehra. The claim by the plaintiff Bank against the defendant No. 1, Company was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 8887/- as a principal debtor and the claim against the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was that of a Guarantor in respect of the loan granted by the Plaintiff Bank to the Company. Such Guarantee was given by the defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in their personal capacity for due repayment of the money, which the defendant No. 1 owed to the plaintiff bank. On 15th December, 1951 M/s. Mehra Brothers Private Ltd. was wound up and the Court Liquidator was appointed Official Liquidator to represent the said Company in liquidation. Leave was obtained on the 7th November, 1960 to proceed against the Company in liquidation and the other defendants for recovery of the Bank's dues.2. Thereafter a...
Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR542(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference, Under Section 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as directed by this court, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions :' 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that Rs. 25,38,694, the balance in ' surplus' account represented ' reserve ' for the purpose of the Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim (of the assessee), that Rs. 25,88,011 the balance in ' surplus' account represented 'reserve ' for the purpose of the Act ' 2. The first question relates to the assessment year 1963-64, and the second one relates to the assessment year 1964-65. The assessment years involved, as we have mentioned, were two years, viz., the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, for which the relevant accounting years were ended on December 31, 1962, and December 31, 1963, respectively. It appears th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Russell Properties (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR473(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the lease agreement, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the service and maintenance charges recovered from the lessees were not only towards the provision of lifts but towards other services as well rendered by the assessee as and for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 ?'This reference relates to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. We may incidentally mention that the Revenue had sought to raise four different questions and one of the questions was question No. 3, viz., 'whether the Tribunal had misdirected itself in holding that the service and maintenance charges received from the tenants were assessable under the head 'Profits and gains from business' and not under the head 'Income from house property'.' This question along ...
Gillapukri Tea and Seed Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Additional Director of L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal220,86CWN210
Banerjee, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the company arises out of an order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge discharging the Rule taken out by the petitioners. The Hon'ble single Judge held inter alia that because of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (as amended by Act XVIII of 1976) the right of appeal having been taken away, the application cannot succeed. The Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 came into force on 16th of Jan., 1957. It appears that on 24th of March, 1971 the tea garden of the company came within the A. F. of C. on L. H, Act. After the said date the petitioners filed return under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules framed, under the Act, It appears that the petitioners filed return as contained in Rule 1 on 7th of April, 1972. On 21st of Sept., 1972 a draft statement was published and the petitioners filed an objection much beyond the prescribed time under Section 7(2) of the Act on 25th Jan., 1973. Be that as it may, the respondent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »