Kolkata Court July 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.
Anadi Nath Chakraborty and ors. Vs. Dukhiram Ghose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal113,85CWN1033
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiff has alleged that the three disputed plots belonged to pro forma defendant No. 2 who retained the same under the provisions of the West Bengal Acquisition Act. He paid licence fee of Rs. 300/- and on the 15th Sravan, 1375 B. S., took a licence of that property for that year from Pro forma defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 came to catch fish from that pond, but he put up obstruction. Due to such threat, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for a permanent injunction on declaration that he is a licensee regarding that property in question under pro forma defendant No. 2. 2. Defendant No. 1 has filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs allegations. His defence is that out of the big plot No. 518, he took settlement of two bighas on the north east from pro forma defendant No. 2. He is in possession of that property. One Nitya Gopal Biswas took settlement of plot No. 293 and the area of the land taken settlement of by the latter from pro fo...
Mamta Sen Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal283,85CWN1012
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This is a revisional application at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated May 5, 1981 passed in T. S. No. 674 of 1977 now pending in the 7th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta.2. The petitioner instituted the suit principally for a declaration that she is entitled to the full value including bonus in respect of a life insurance policy. Facts so far asthey are relevant for our present purposes are not disputed. Indrajit Sen, since deceased, was the holder of the life insurance policy and, the petitioner is the nominee of the policy holder. The policy holder having died on March 5, 1974, she lodged a claim for payment of the amount due under the policy. Initially the Life Insurance Corporation, the opposite party herein issued a discharge voucher to the petitioner for being duly filled in and returned to the Corporation. This was done but the Corporation thereafter agreed to pay only the paid up value of the policy on the groun...
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR258(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This reference arises out of the proceedings for the rectification of certain assessments relating to the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and production of aluminium at different places during the relevant years such as Alupuram, Muri, Belur, Kalwa and Hirakucl. The company produces aluminium ingots and also sheets, circles, foils, extrusions, aluminium powder, paste (pigments), etc., required in various machinery like textile machinery, jute machinery, metallurgical machinery, chemical machinery, earthmoving machinery, irrigation equipment, etc. The relevant previous years for the three assessment years with which we are concerned were 31st December, 1966, 31st December, 1967, and 31st December, 1968, respectively. The ITO completed the assessments without computing the statutory relief allowable to the asses-see under Section 80J(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, with regard to the as...
Amiya Prosad Vs. Bejoy Krishna Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal351
ORDERB.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from offering the seva puja or doing any duty of the shebaits of Sri Sri Iswar Satbhai Kalimatar Ashram. On the plaintiff's prayer, the learned Munsif passed an interim order for temporary injunction re-straining the defendant No. 1 in that respect. It was stated that the matter was urgent and hence interim order was passed. Against that order, by which the player for ad-interim in junction was allowed, an appeal was preferred. The same was dismissed and hence this revisional application. 2. Mr. Das Gnpta has made a short submission. It has been contended that previously the law was the same in this respect because in urgent matters injunction could not be issued in the defendant's absence without strong and grave reasons. The case of R.H. Baddam v. Dhunput Singh in (1897) 1 Cal WN 429 at p. 431 has been cited to show that an injunction cannot be issued in the defendant's absen...
Gopal Sen Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Cal431
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an application challenging the election of the Dum Dum Municipality in Ward No. 9. According to the petitioner, he is a voter of Ward No. 9 and the election was held on the 31st May, 1981. This application for issue of rule nisi under Article 226 of the Constitution was moved on 10th July, 1981, upon notice to the respondents. The respondent No. 4 who was a candidate at the said election was alleged to have appointed one Chandidas Saha an employee of the said Municipality as his pulling agent in violation of the mandate of Rule 46 of the West Bengal Municipal Election Rules, 1975 which provides that no person having directly or indirectly by himself or his partner any share or interest in any contract or employment with, by or on behalf of the Commissioners, or holding any office of profit under the Commissioners, shall directly or indirectly, engage in canvassing for votes or otherwise assist in the election of any candidate otherwise than by giv...
Krishna Narayan Das and ors. Vs. Additional District Magistrate Etc. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal380,86CWN364
M.N. Roy, J.1. The petitioners, who have claimed to be the owners of the lands (hereinafter referred to as the said lands), as involved in the order, of requisition (hereinafter referred to as the said order), under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), obtained this Rule oh 9th Aug. 1977. At the time of the issue of the Rule, no interim order was granted, but liberty was given, to ask for appropriate interim order, on notice to the other side and although such prayer for interim order was made, the same was not entertained. The respective particulars of the petitioners, whereby they entered into and possessed their shares in the said lands and so also the names of their respective vendors have been duly disclosed in the petition.2. It has also been stated that the purchase of petitioner No. 3, Sri Binapani Dasi from her vendor was in respect of a tank measuring more or less .93 acre in Plot No. 40 and th...
Bibhuti Bhusan Basu Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ909
ORDERManashnath Roy, J.1. In this Rule, which was obtained on 12th Feb. 1980, the petitioner, who has admittedly retired from the services of the Respondent Corporation of Calcutta, has prayed for drawing up proceedings Under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, which is to the following effect: 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of iustice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred t0 in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have boen committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-(a) record a finding to that effect:(b) make a complaint thereof in writing:(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having .ju...
Krishna Kishore Kar Vs. United Commercial Bank and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Cal62
Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. 1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,26,858.26 instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants on account of the following facts: It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff, in his business of Isis Coal Company, had opened a cash credit account with the defendant bank. In his said business, the plaintiff had dealings and transactions with Durgapur Project Limited, the defendant No. 2 herein, On 2-8-62, the defendant No. 1 at the request of the plaintiff, executed a bond for Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of the defendant No. 2 guaranteeing payment for coal supplied and to be supplied to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 2. As against this bond, the plaintiff, on 2-8-1962, executed a counter guarantee in favour of the defendant No. 1 on certain terms and conditions contained therein. The period of guarantee was from 2-8-1962 to 1-8-1963 (Ext. A pages 6 and 7). In respect of the Bank guarantee the defendant No. 2 had demanded margin money from the plaintiff to...
Commissioner of Gift-tax, Central-i Vs. Basant Kumar Aditya Vikram Bir ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Cal)17,[1982]137ITR72(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference under Section 26(1) of the G.T. Act, 1958, poses the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that jewellery, cash and fridge of the value of Rs. 67,744 given by the assessee to Smt. Jayasree Mohta, at the time of her marriage, did not fall within the ambit of the term 'gift' as defined in Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ' 2. The assessee is an HUF. The proceedings out of which this reference arises relates to the gift-tax assessment for the assessment year 1970-71. The gift made by the assessee-HUF during the previous year included the following amounts given to Smt. Jayashree Mohta, daughter of Sri B.K. Birla, karta of the assessee-family, at the time of her marriage. Those were as follows : Rs.'Jewellery worth47,000Cash11,000Fridge9,74467,744'3. The assessee disclosed the value of all the gifts amounting to Rs. 1,33,744 which included this gift of Rs. 67,744....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Borhat Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR783(Cal)
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1969-70 and the relevant previous year ended on 31st December, 1968. The business of the assessee is of cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea. The assessee had a tea estate near Borhat in Upper Assam. The area of the estate was about 4,000 acres out of which 1,075 acres were under cultivation. On 24th December, 1968, the assessee sold about 261 acres of land to M/s. Rukong Tea Estate for a sum of Rs. 97,640. The estate had been acquired before 1st January, 1954, and the market value of the area sold was a profit of Rs. 97,640. On being asked by the ITO why the profit should not be treated as a capital gain under Section 45(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee's explanation was that the land sold was suitable for the cultivation and the purchasers were engaged in cultivation of tea in adjoining areas and that the land was agricultural land. The ITO took the view that the land sold was not agricultural land as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »