Kolkata Court June 1981 Judgments
Mustt. Nasima Khatun and Etc. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal302,85CWN952
M.M. Dutt, J.1. The appellants in these four appeals have challenged the propriety of the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji J. whereby the learned Judge discharged the Rules Nisi issued on the respective applications of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The appellants are Mutwallis of certain wakf estates claimed to be wakf-al-al-aulad. In Appeals Nos. 422 and 423 of 1975, the appellant in both these appeals, Shaikh Basir Ahmed, is the wakif in respect of two Wakfs-al-al-aulad and he constituted himself to be the first Mutwalli in respect of these two wakfs. The Commissioner of Wakf, West Bengal served demand notices under Section 59 of the Bengal Wakf, Act, 1934 as amended by the Bengal Wakf (Amendment) Act, 1973 demanding from the appellants certain amounts towards the contribution of wakf fund and education fund. The appellants being aggrieved by the said demand notices moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the same. I...
Tag this Judgment!Achinta Panda Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1919
ORDERAmitabha Dutta, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the orders passed by Sri A. K. Chatterjee, the learned Sub-divisonal Judicial Magistrate at Tamluk issuing process against the petitioner and Ors. who are the opposite party Nos. 3 to 23 under Sections 147 and 379 of the Penal Code in case No. P17C of 1979, arising out of a complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 Saiful Islam. In the complaint filed on 22-11-79 the opposite party No. 2 alleged that on 16-11-1979 the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 3 to 23 armed with various weapons trespassed into Plots Nos. 745 and 746 of Mouza Samsabad and forcibly reaped the paddy grown by the complainant as a bargadar of those plots.2. The petitioner's case is that the opposite party No. 4 Mahadeb Panda and Ors. purchased the disputed land in Plot Nos, 745 and 746 of Monza Samsabad from Haripada Pal by a registered Kobala on 11-11-1978 and were in khas possession thereof since the said date. The opposite party No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Asoke Gopal Dutta Vs. Nirmal Kumar Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal329,85CWN1009
ORDERSudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This application for revision is directed against the order dated 5th Nov., 1979 passed by Sri H. Manna, Rent Controller, Calcutta dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 29-B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.2. The opposite party occupied a part of the ground floor of the premises No. 9-A Ballygunge Place, Calcutta, as a monthly tenant under the petitioner, his brother and mother, who served a notice dated 10-1-1976 terminating the tenancy on the expiry of the month of February 1976. The petitioner is a Central Government employee under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Department and has been residing at 59 Lake Road, allotted to him by the Government, but in terms of the existing Government order be has been asked to vacate the said Government quarter on the ground trial he owns the suit premises at 9A Ballygunge Place and as such he requires the residential accommodation now in occupation of the opposite party to ...
Tag this Judgment!Pasupati Nath Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Executive Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal391,85CWN1044
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J. 1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs. They filed a suit against the Garden Reach Municipality and others according to the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil P. C. Eventually, an application for a temporary injunction was prayed for. On the 26th May, 1981. that prayer was refused and the plaintiffs' application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code reiected. Against that order, the present revi-sional application was filed according to the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the record shows that everything was done in a mala fide manner. The matter was very urgent relating to election. So, a prayer for temporary injunction was made. Though the application for ad interim injunction was filed by giving notice to the other side as far back as 21st April. 1981. the learned Munsif illegally refused to pass ad interim injunction on the 23rd April, 1981. Then...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Cal)339,[1982]138ITR763(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which relates to the assessment year 1965-66, the assesseeposed two questions before the Tribunal for reference to this court. The questions were as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any materials or had relied on irrelevant or partly irrelevant materials to come to the finding that a loss of Rs. 87,546 had accrued or arisen to the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1965-66 and whether such finding was not otherwise unreasonable or perverse ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss of Rs. 87,546 was a trading loss incurred by the assessee in the course of its business and was not a capital loss arising from the loss of capital invested in the subsidiary company ?' 2. The Tribunal, however, has referred one question refraining ...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Bajaj and ors. Vs. D.K. Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ210
ORDERMonoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. For failure to pay the contributions (Employees' as well as employers' share) and for failure to pay the administrative charges, a Provident Fund Inspector has filed 30 separate complaints for 30 different months against M/s. Grown Rubber Industries (P.) Ltd., of which the three petitioners before us are the Directors. Along with the complaints the complainant filed applications Under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for condoning the delay in preferring those 30 complaints within the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta, allowed the application Under Section 473 of the Code, took cognizance upon the said complaints and issued process against the petitioners and the Company. Aggrieved by institution of the 30 cases the petitioners moved this Court and obtained these Rules. As a common point has been raised in support of these Rules they have been heard together and this judgment will disp...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Soumitra Kumar De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal32
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. After having heard Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the Principal, University College of Law though I was very much reluctant tointerfere in this matter still after having seen the sorrowful state of affairs going on in the University Law College particularly in its Hazra Branch I am quite clear in my mind that the authorities of the college including Shri Upadhaya the Principal. University College of Law, are not aware nor do they try to be over conscious of their duties and serious responsibilities of running this sacred Institution and to see that the students reading there are properly trained and instructed. The attendance registers have been produced before this Court and I am constrained to say that all these attendance registers clearly show in what perfunctory manner they have been kept. It appears that in several months six or seven lectures have been recorded to have been delivered by the teachers concerned: no...
Tag this Judgment!Davidson of India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Cal)291,[1983]140ITR344(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, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the devaluation loss of Rs. 4,17,833 was not deductible in computing the assessee's business income ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company and the reference relates to the assessment year 1967-68. Daring the previous year relevant to this assessment year there was devaluation of the Indian rupee on 6th June, 1966 and the assessee-company, therefore, claimed before the revenue authorities devaluation loss of Rs. 5,71, 615 on this account, the break-up of which WMS as follows : Rs.(i) Losson devaluation of sterling loan4,17,833(ii)Loss on devaluation on balance outstanding for purchase of capital goods37,375(iii)Loss on devaluation on balance outstanding for import of raw materials andcomponentsused for the purposes of the as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arun DuA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)74
: Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - The assessment relates to the asst. yr. 1967-68. The original assessee is dead now. His legal reversionary and legal heir is his representative. The assessee was an individual and was the Managing Director of American Refrigeration Co. Ltd. and he received a salary, commissions and certain other benefits according to the agreement between him and his employer. The terms of the agreement provided inter alia for the reappointment of Sri. B. S. Dua as the Managing Director of the company for a period not exceeding five years with effect from 8-4-1965 on a remuneration not exceeding the following :'(1). (a) Salary of Rs. 6,000 per month.(b) Free furnished accommodation with gas, electricity, telephone, etc. cost not exceeding to the company Rs. 24,000 per annum Mr. B. S. Dua shall be obliged to use the accommodation so provided and to accommodate therein guests of the company, visiting Calcutta in connection with the companys affairs.(c) Free medical benefit fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madanlal Sohanlal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Cal)272,[1982]137ITR29(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred to this court : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment could not be reopened under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 297(2)(b) and Section 297(2)(d)(ii), the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 12,26,206 could not be assessed as the income of the assessee for the year under consideration ' 2. The assessee is a registered firm and the reference relates to the assessment year 1955-56. There was a private limited company under the name and style of M/s. Hall & Anderson Ltd., whose entire shares were purchased in the name of the assessee-firm, M/s. Madanlal Sohanlal, some time in September, 1946, for Rs. 80,00,000. Later on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »