Kolkata Court April 1982 Judgments
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Tridib Nath Sanyal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal124,(1981)1CompLJ156(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court. Alipore dated the 18th Nov. 1981 dismissing its application for condonation of delay and for setting aside the order dated 7th July, 1981 by which the said court had dismissed .Title Appeal No. 731 of 1979 for default, the Oil & Natural Gas Commission has preferred this First Miscellaneous Appeal and the Re-visional Application under Section 115 of the Code in the alternative.2. The only point is whether or not the appellant Corporation was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore on 7th July, 1981 when the aforesaid title appeal preferred by it was called for hearing and dismissed for default. The appellant Corporation made its applications for re-admission of the said appeal on 30th of Oct. 1981, i.e., more than 30 days from the date on which the said appeal had been dismissed for default, therefore, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Shethia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. Vs. Khas Dharmaband ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal413,1982(2)CHN49,86CWN919
M.M. Dutt. J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Shethia Mining & Manufacturing Corporation Limited against the order dated July 3, 1979 of a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application of the appellant filed on Dec. 7, 1978.2. On Feb. 7, 1972, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent in the Original Side of this Court praying for a decree for Rs. 12,25,615.62, being the balance of the price of the goods sold and delivered by the appellant to therespondent. The respondent entered appearance in the suit and filed its written statement. On July 16, 1975, the respondent applied before the Court below for discovery of documents by the appellant. It appears that on July 30, 1975, the appellant affirmed an affidavit of documents. The said affidavit was not, however, filed by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the affidavit, after it was affirmed, was sent by the appellant to its Directors in Bombay for their...
Tag this Judgment!Taramohnn Chowdhuri Vs. Union of and India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ318Cal
P.K. Banerjee, J.1. This rule is directed against an order of dismissal of the petitioner from the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India by order dated 30th of March, 1970. As there was an Industrial Dispute pending before the National Industrial Tribunal, approval was sought for and granted by the National Industrial Tribunal on 26th of June, 1970. On 3rd August, 1968 a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition which is as follow :You Sri Taramohan Chowdhury, an Assistant, working in the Unit: Metropolitan, Calcutta, are hereby charged with the following offences:1. That you along with Shri Amulya Das, Santosh Kumar Das and Anil Kumar Dey entered into a conspiracy and committed a criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs. 4,455.00 in respect of a fraudulent death claim under Policy No. 186783 on the life of Shri Shibdas Chakraborty.2. You being entrusted with the work of preparation of discharge voucher and also the p...
Tag this Judgment!Hindusthan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. Vs. Karamchand Thapar a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas497(Cal)
T.K. Basu, J.1. This is an application under Section 391(2) read with Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for confirmation of a scheme of amalgamation. The statutory formalities which are required to be complied with prior to an application for confirmation have been complied with.2. The only objection that is taken by Mr. S. B. Mookherjee, appearing on behalf of the Central Govt., is that under Section 23(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), prior approval by the Central Govt. is necessary before a scheme can be sanctioned in the instant case.3. This is because admittedly both the transferor and the transferee-companies are registered under the provisions of the Act. According to Mr. Mookherjee, the exemption provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act is not applicable in the instant case.4. Mr. R. C. Nag, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Mohan Dutta Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: (1982)2ITD98(Kol.)
1. The assessee is an individual. His valuation date for the assessment year 1976-77 was 13-4-1976. The controversy in the present appeal centres round mainly on the addition of Rs. 6,96,544 added by the WTO as the value of gold and gold coins. The addition was made by the WTO on the ground that the aforesaid gold and gold coins continued to be the property of the assessee, even though they had been seized originally by the income-tax authorities from the assessee on 17-1-1975 and later by the customs authorities, from the custody of the income-tax authorities, on 18-1-1975.2. According to the assessee, however, the said assets were ultimately confiscated by the Collector of Customs vide order dated 29-6-1978 and this confiscation, according to him, would relate back to the date of the seizure and so it will have to be presumed as if the assessee did not own the said assets from 17-1-1975.3. As the entire controversy in the present case has turned on the interpretation of the various ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Central Vs. Balbhadradas Bangur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Cal)165,[1984]148ITR149(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, we are concerned with the assessment years 1961-62 to 1964-65 for which the relevant valuation dates were March 31, 1961, March 31, 1962, March 31, 1963 and March 31, 1964, respectively. The assessee is an individual and the issue relates to the valuation of certain shares held by the assessee in limited companies which were not quoted on the stock exchange. The Revenue had gone up in appeal before the Tribunal in respect of these four wealth-tax assessment years because it was not satisfied with the valuation of shares as sustained by the AAC in respect of the following companies:1. General Investment Co. Ltd. 2. Indian Investment Co. Ltd. 3. Oriental Company Ltd., and 4. Luxmi Salt Company Ltd. 2. The assessee also had gone up in appeal before the Tribunal in respect of the said four wealth-tax assessment years as the assessee felt aggrieved with the valuation of shares as sustained by the AAC in ...
Tag this Judgment!Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Seventh Industrial ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ157Cal
R.N. Pyne, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of P.K. Banerjee, J., dated December 12, 1972 dismissing the appellant's application made under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of reference dated 8th December 1967 and the Order No. 52 of the respondent No. 1 Seventh Industrial Tribunal dated 2nd April, 1971. Relevant facts of this case may briefly be stated.2. Rivers Steam Navigation Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') which was incorporated in England, operated as inland carrier of goods between West Bengal and Assam over the rivers flowing through East Bengal. It also owned a Rajabagan Dock-yard, a large enterprise in Calcutta for repairing vessels etc. The company had to close down its business during Indo-Pakistan conflict in 1966 as large number of vessels of the company had been seized by the Pakistan Government. After termination of Indo-Pakistan hostility the company started operation in Assam and in the port of...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Shiva Prasad BagariA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: [1982]2ITD449(Cal)
ORDERPer Shri Anand Prakash, Accountant Member - These are departmental appeals. As the facts giving rise to them are common, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. The respondent is the only legal heir of the deceased assessee, Smt. Ratni Devi Bagaria; hence he represents her as her representative assessee.2. These appeals were originally filed by the Commissioner on 20-2-1981, i.e., the last date of the filing of the said appeals. In respect of the assessment year 1963-64, the Commissioner took only one ground of appeal, pertaining to the direction of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to the WTO that he should allow income-tax liabilities of the assessee which he had originally disallowed. In respect of the assessment years 1964-65 to 1972-73, the Commissioner raised two grounds of appeal, one of which was as above, and the other was with regard to the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow deduction under section 5...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ganpatrai Sagarmull and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal14
R.N. Pyne, J.1. The respondents Messrs. Ganpatrai Sagarmull and K. P. Ramaswami Nadar, as plaintiffs in the Court of the first instance, filed Suit No. 456 of 1965 against Union of India, the defendant in the suit and the appellant before us, for a decree for Rs. 10,017/- in favour of either or alternatively, an enquiry into demages and a decree for such sum as might be found due, interests, costs and other reliefs.2-3. The respondents case as stated in the plaint was as follows:--The respondent No. 1, Ganpatrai Sagarmull acted as a commission agent of the respondent No. 2, K. P. Ramaswami, that in any event if the respondent No. 1 was not competent to maintain the suit, the respondent No. 2 was entitled to the said sum by way of damages for non-delivery. After service of the due notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act, 1890 and Section 80 of C. P. C. the respondents on or about 16th March, 1965 filed the said suit against the appellant in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Synthetic Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.; Ex Parte: Adhir Ranjan De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas461(Cal)
Basu, J.1. This is an application under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, for the winding up of a company.2. The facts relating to the application may be briefly noted.3. On May 15, 1981, the petitioner, according to the petition, lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 45,000 by way of an accommodation loan to M/s. Synthetic Wire Industries P. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 12A, Camac Street, Flat No. 2B, Calcutta-17 (hereinafter referred to as ' the company'); According to the petition, the agreed rate of interest was 18% per annum.4. In order to secure the repayment of the loan of Rs. 45,000, the company along with the then board of directors of the company, namely, Meghraj Berlia, Mohit Kumar Berlia, Lalit Kumar Berlia, Amit Kumar Berlia and Sujit Kumar Berlia along with Kamal Kumar Khaitan and Smt. Kamala Khaitan, executed a hundi and/or promissory note for Rs. 45,000 on May 15, 1981. It is the case of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »