Kolkata Court March 1982 Judgments
West Bengal Decorating Co. Vs. Damodar Das Daga
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal386,86CWN618
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. These two revisional applications, both at the instance of the defendant of Com. Suit No. 510 of 1979 of the City Civil Court, are directed against two Orders dated Jan. 11, 1980 and September 23, 1981.2. The plaintiff opposite party instituted the above suit for recovery of price of goods sold and delivered together with interest, under Order 37, C.P.C. The learned Registrar of that court being not certain whether such a suit could be instituted under Order 37, placed the matter before the Bench for orders. The court by its order dated January 11, 1980, held that the unpaid price of goods sold is in the nature of a 'debt' and the liability arises out of an enactment, viz, the Sale of Goods Act, Hence, in view of the amended provisions of Order 37 it was held that the suit came within the perview of that order.3. Thereafter the summary procedure for suits under Order 37 was adopted and the summons having been served, the 'defendant petitioner entered appearance a...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshwar Choudhury and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal346,86CWN628
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. The appellants, who are 117 Rickshaw pullers, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of T.K. Basu, J. dismissing the application of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The case of the appellants is that, they have been plying their rickshaws within the limits of the South Dum-Dum Municipality under licences granted to them by the said Municipality under Section 173 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. The appellants claim that by a notification issued by the State Government under Section 2(b) of the Calcutta Hackney-Carriage Act, 1919, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the area appertaining to the South Dum-Dum Municipality has been included in Calcutta as defined in Section 4(2) of the Act, that is to say, inter alia, the area described in Schedule I to the Calcutta Municipal Act. The contention of the appellants is that in view of the said notification under Section 2(b) of the Act, the appellants are entitled to ply their ricks...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hanuman Prasad Luxmi Narayan.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Cal)187
: Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - In this reference u/s 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, following question has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee firm was entitled to registration u/s 185 of the It Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1965-66 ?'2. This reference relates to the asst. yr. 1965-66 of which the relevant previous year is from 16-11-1963 to 2-11-1964 (Dewali Sambat Year 2021). The assessee firm was formed in 1962 and was evidence by a partnership deed executed on 29-10-1962. Under the said deed, there were seven partners partnership. On 15-11-1963, that is, on the last day of the prior accounting year, one partner, L. N. Todi, retired and one minor named Vinod Kumar Todi, son of Radha Krishna Todi, was admitted to the benefits of partnership. On the change of the constitution, a fresh partnership deed was executed on 16-11-1963. The assessee firm claimed fresh registration and fi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. General Marketing and Manufacturing Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Cal)186
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - In this reference u/s 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of s. 40)c)(iii)(a)(v) of the It Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cash payments made by the assessee to its employees incurred by way of house rent, medical expenses and salaries of gardeners relevant previous years did not result in the provision of any benefit, amenity or perquisite and should not, therefore taken into account in computing the disallowances to be made under the said s. 40(c)(iii)/40(a)(V) ?'2. In view of the facts found by the Tribunal and in view of the principles laid down the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT, West Bengal v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. : [1979]119ITR431(Cal) , principles of which decision have been followed by the Karnataka High Court in the decision reported in CIT v. Mysore Commercial Union L...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Hironmoyee Debi and ors. Vs. Somendra Chandra Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal391,86CWN559
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 15, 1971 (reported in) : AIR1971Cal425 , passed by our learned brother S. K. Dutta, J., thereby dismissing an appeal from appellate decree No. 218 of 1964 preferred by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in a suit for eviction, The said defendants are the appellants now before us. The short point which arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the said defendants who have been found to be in occupation of different parts of the suit premises as sub-tenants since before the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 but who had not given any notice of such sub-tenancy under Section 18(2) of the said Act, would be entitled to protection against eviction,2. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us (hereinafter referred to us the plaintiffs) instituted Title Suit No. 251 of 1957 for eviction against their tenant, the respondent No. 3 before us (hereinafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Bibhuti Bhusan Mayur Vs. Bhabesh Bhusan Mayur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal374
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The petitioner made an application for revocation of the probate. His allegation is that his father, Panchkari, died on the 22nd Oct., 1940, leaving the petitioner as son of his first predeceased wife, opposite party No. 2 Nripanandini as his widow and some children by Ms second wife. Panchkari inherited the premises No. 8/1, Ghosepara Lane, from his father. He had another house at Mahinath para Lane and 18 bighas of arable land at Garbhawanipur within the Police Station Amta. From one month before his death he was lying bed-ridden and at last on 22-10-1940 he expired. One week before his father's death the opposite party No. 1 in collusion with opposite party No. 2 took advantage of the bad state of health of his father and with a view to depriving him of the property, obtained Panchkari's thumb-impressions on the alleged fraudulent will said to have been executed on 20-10-1940. Actually that will was obtained by exercising undue influence and Panchkari had no knowl...
Tag this Judgment!Habibar Rahaman Vs. Jagannath Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1652
N.G. Chaudhuri, J.1. This Revisional petition under Section 397 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against orders dated 4-11-78 and 4-4-79 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katwa in case No. C/458 of 1978 and is for quashing the proceedings in the said case. The aforesaid case arose out of a complaint under Section 188 I.P.C. filed by the Executive Magistrate, Katwa. The undisputed facts are that on 6-7-77 the Executive Magistrate, Katwa, in Misc. Case No. 58 of 1977 passed an order under Section 144 Cr. P.C. restraining the present petitioner and some others from entering upon the land in dispute. The said order was duly promulgated on 15-7-77. On 19-7-77 the Mondal opposite parties filed a petition alleging that in spite of service of notice of the proceedings and the order under Section 144 Cr. P.C. the present petitioner and some others violated the aforesaid order on 17-7-77, entered upon the disputed land and interfered with the possession of the said oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Probodh Kumar Das Vs. Prafulla Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal428
B.N. Maitra, J. 1. The plaintiff is the alleged executor of the Will of one Kiron Sashi Dasi. He has alleged that on 15-5-1968 she executed a Will and appointed him executor. Then on 16-6-1968 she died childless at Gormi, P.S. Dum Dum. The beneficiaries of the Will are her brother's sons.2. The defendants Nos. 5 and 6 contested the suit by filing a written statement. It has been alleged inter alia that she has no mental and physical capacity to execute the alleged Will. She was bedridden for more than six months before the execution of the alleged Will. She was under the supervision and care of the defendant Broja Bala Dasi. It was a forged and fabricated Will with a view to depriving her natural heirs.3. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the plaintiff's contention and dismissed the suit by observing that the suspicious circumstances had not been removed. Hence this appeal by the executor.4. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there are no suspicious circ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ram Awatar Agarwal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal191
ORDERB.C. Ray, J. 1. This application is directed against three demolition orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta for demolition of the unauthorised structure i.e. the 14 storied building at 174, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, on the ground that copies of the order made under Section 414 (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 were not served on these petitioners who are occupants of all these 13 floors of the aforesaid premises and also that there has been a non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 560 and 561 of the said Act, It has also been challenged that there has been a total violation of the principles of natural justice by refusing to give the petitioners who are seriously prejudiced and affected by the impugned orders of demolition dated 15-5-78 and 21-4-81 by not being given any opportunity of filing any objections against the purported orders and of denying any opportunity of hearing of their objections against those orders. On hearing orally ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Kusum Rani Biswas Vs. Sanyasi Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal243,86CWN556
ORDER1. The opposite party No. 1 Sanyasi Biswas filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for pre-emption on the ground that he was a contiguous owner of the disputed land which was transferred by opposite party No. 2, Tukubala Biswas, to the petitioner Kusum Rani Biswas. The learned Munsif dismissed the application on the ground that Sanyasi Biswas had failed to prove that he was a contiguous owner of the disputed portion sought to be pre-empted. The appeal preferred by Sanyasi Biswas was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge who came to the finding that appellant Sanyasi Biswas a raiyat and he was in possession of land adjoining the disputed holding out of which the disputed three plots were transferred. The petitioner Kusum Rani Biswas has challenged the said decision of the learned Additional District Judge in the present revisional application.2. Mr. S.C. Mitter, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the learned appellate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »