Kolkata Court January 1982 Judgments
Ganges River Transport Vs. Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal290,86CWN443
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 in Money Suit No. 47 of 1979 of the 8th Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore is the petitioner before us. The order challenged is the one dated June 18, 1981 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing an application filed by the defendant No. 1 on Mar. 23, 1981 for reconsideration of an order dated Mar. 22, 1980. It will be necessary to refer to the facts shortly in the background in order to appreciate the real dispute between the parties.2. The plaintiff opposite party, namely, the Reliance Jute and industries Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act instituted the aforesaid Money Suit No. 47 of 1979 for a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,03,257.11 p. by way of compensation and in the alternative for damages. This suit was filed on Oct. 23, 1979 with deficit court fee paid on the plaint. The court directed the plaintiff to put in the balance court-fee on or before Nov. 17, 1979 on which date the balance court-fee not hav...
Tag this Judgment!Karam Chand Thapar and Sons Ltd. Vs. Modern Agencies Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas175(Cal)
T.K. Basu, J.1. In this application under Sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, the subject-matter is the sanction of a scheme of amalgamation of Karam Chand Thapar & Sons Ltd., the transferor-company, and Modern Agencies Ltd., the transferee-company. It may be mentioned that all the legal requirements regarding final sanction of the scheme have been duly completed.2. At this stage, the Central Govt. has come forward with an affidavit affirmed by Chittaranjan Das on the 27th January, 1982. The only objection on behalf of the Central Government which will appear from paragraph 4 of the above affidavit is to the effect that the proposed scheme of amalgamation attracts the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ' the MRTP Act '). As such, it is contended that no order of amalgamation should be passed unless the scheme for amalgamation has been approved by the Central Govt. under Section 23(2) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Jadabpore Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Bengal Dooars National Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas160(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of an order passed and judgment delivered by the learned trial judge on 17th May, 1979. There is also a cross-objection filed by the respondent to the appeal. In the application which has resulted in the order appealed from the petitioner, the Bengal Dooars National Tea Co. Ltd., the respondent herein, had asked for certain orders, inter alia, that the resolution passed in the meeting held on 5th December, 1977, be declared illegal, invalid, null and void and of no effect. There was also a prayer for an injunction restraining respondents Nos. 2 to 7, who are the directors of the appellant, Jadabpore Tea Co. Ltd., from dealing with, disposing of or transferring or selling or alienating any of the assets of the company. There were mainly three factors involved in this application. The petitioner, viz., the Bengal Dooars National Tea Co, Ltd., claimed to be a shareholder of 10,002 ordinary shares of Rs. 20 each. The authorised share cap...
Tag this Judgment!Wood Craft Products Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: (1982)1ITD1(Kol.)
1. The assessee is a company and the proceedings relate to its assessment for the assessment year 1974-75. During the previous year, the assessee donated a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to a trust known as "Vishwamangal Trust" (hereinafter referred to as "the trust").Deduction under Section 80G of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), was claimed in respect thereof and allowed by the ITO while completing the assessment under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B, of the Act. Subsequently, the Commissioner, after allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, passed an order under Section 263 of the Act, inter alia, directing the ITO to withdraw the deduction granted to the assessee under Section 80G in respect of the aforesaid donation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the trust.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, the assessee has come up in appeal. There are a number of grounds in the appeal memo, particularly, against the other directions given by the Commissioner to the ITO. How...
Tag this Judgment!Road Machines (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Projects and Equipment Corpora ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal91
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The plaintiff, Road Machines (India) Private Ltd., in this application made in the above suit, is seeking to prevent invocation of a Bank Guarantee dated the 9th Oct., 1980 which was issued in favour of the Projects and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., the defendant No. 1 by the United Bank of India, the defendant No. 2 whereby the defendant No. 2 guaranteed irrevocably and unconditionally that the plaintiff would perform their obligations in respect of timely delivery of goods, quality of goods delivered and other conditions as contained in a Contract dated 8th Aug., 1980 entered into by and between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and in default of the plaintiff to honour the said obligations to pay to the extent of Rs. 1,52,760/- to the defendant No. 1. The Letter of Guarantee further provided that:(a) the decision of the defendant No. 1 as to the liability of the defendant No. 2 under the said guarantee and the amount payable thereunder would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Abdul Latif Vs. Commissioner of Wakfs and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal288,86CWN434
Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the petitioner arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Wakfs under Section 27 of the Bengal Wakf Act. The petitioner who is the appellant herein, is alleged to be mutwalli and the respondent No. 2 is alleged to be beneficiary under the Wakf created by one Sk. Panchkari who executed wakf and registered the Wakfnama on 10th of Palgun, 1332 B. S. At the time of execution of the said wakfnama, it is alleged, the Wakif had only two daughters namely. Raushan Ara Bibi and Masuda Dibi, both of whom were married. After the execution of the Wakf-nama the wakif married again and the petitioner was born of the wakif's second wife. The wakif died sometime in 1940 and after his death, it is alleged, one of his sons-in-law, husband of respondent No. 2 was appointed as mutwalli of the wakf estate. At that time the petitioner was a minor. The said mutwalli died on 7th o...
Tag this Judgment!Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1982
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Cal)50,[1983]142ITR448(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with two years, viz., assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. For the assessment year 1967-68 the following two questions, apart from one question for both these years to which we shall refer, have been referred to us : ' 1. Whether, on the proper interpretation of entry (2) of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expression 'aluminium' occurring therein denoted merely the 'aluminium metal and not aluminium articles 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of Section 80E read with entry (2) of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium articles could not be considered as priority industry within the meaning of the said provision of the said Act and that the assessee-company was not...
Tag this Judgment!Nil Kamal Bejbaruah Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal180,86CWN502
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. The petitioners who claimed to be the owners of the property being premises No. 2, Park Lane, Calcutta has come up before this Court with the instant writ application assailing the validity of the order of requisition made under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act, II of 1948) on the ground that the order of requisition has not been served on the petitioners as required under the Act framed thereunder and that the order was made under colourable exercise of power as there was no formation of opinion and there was no application of mind. The said order has also been challenged on the ground that there was no public purpose for requisition of this land and the said land being previously notified for acquisition and the same being pending the order of the requisition was also illegal and bad.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners jointly purchased the property at premises No. 2, Park Lane on or about Aug...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kalipada Sadhukhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal376,86CWN346
ORDERSudhindra Mohan Guha, J.1. This application is directed against the order dated 5th December, 1981 passed by Sri D. Pal, Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in T. S. No. 17 of 1946 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 151, C. P. Code.2. Tulsi Charan Jati filed the above suit for partition of the dwelling house and other lands. The preliminary decree, was passed on June 16, 1947. Thereafter on or about nth April, 1940 Tulsi sold his undivided four annas interest in the suit property to Gostha Behari Sadhukhan, father of the petitioner. On or about June 27, 1959 the opposite party filed an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act for pre-emption of the sale which was allowed. Later on the opposite party was directed to deposit Rupees 9,000 towards valuation of the property to be pre-empted.3. A kobala was thereafter executed by the Court in favour of the opposite party. The opposite party prayed for delivery of possession with the help of police. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Rungta Vs. Mahadeo Prasad Agarwala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal394
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J. 1. This application is in respect of an order being order No.9 dt, 27th August, 1981 passed by the learned Mum sif, First Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 290 of 1981, The opposite party Mahadeo Prasad Agarwala landlord of 30/5, Kankurgachi Road, C.I.T, Schema No, VLM, P.S. Fulbagan, Calcutta instituted a title suit No, 290 of 1981 against the applicant, petitioner in the first court of the learned Munsif in respect of the suit property for eviction on several grounds, namely, default, subletting etc, In the suit the applicant petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of his electricity which was enjoyed from the metre of one Shri Newrang Rai Fatehpuria and he claimed that he enjoyed electricity exclusively from that metre consumer No, being 47088040106J since the inception of his tenancy. The petitioner applicant alleged that his supply had been cut off by the landlord opposite party on 4th August, 1981 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »