Kolkata Court April 1982 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.
Lt. Col. Dr. T. Banerjee Vs. N.P. Shah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal341,86CWN973
ORDERJoytirmoyee Nag, J.1. This Rule is directedagainst the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in K. C. Case No 3 of 1981. The proceeding before the learned Rent Controller Under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act provides for expeditious disposal of an application for eviction of a tenant. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 18A. Ramesh Mitter Road, Calcutta-25. The opposite party is a monthly tenant in respect of ground floor flat at 18A, Ra-mesh Mitter Road which consists of three living rooms one kitchen, one bathroom, one privy and a courtyard at a monthly rental of Rs. 140. The peti-tioner is a retired military officer and he was attached to the Armv Medical Corps. He retired from active military service from the 30th July, 1977. After his retirement, he out up with his elder brother, but now since his elder brother cannot accommodate him on account of his own requirement, he requires the suit premises for his personal occupation. Hence, he filed...
Sm. Parimal Mitra and ors. Vs. Paresh Chandra Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal361,86CWN753
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This application under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. has been filed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 5, and it is directed against order No. 51 dated July 29, 1981 of the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 231V of 1958 holding that the said Court has jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by the plaintiff opposite party.2. The plaintiff's case in short is that he was at all material times and still is a tenant under the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 of the entire building known as Atindra Dham and situate at Gopal Ballav Road, Sea Beach, Puri at a monthly rent of Rs. 300 payable according to the English Calendar month. The defendants Nos. 6 to 9 are the sub-tenants under the plaintiff. On August 31, 1977, the defendant No. 4, one of the landlords of the plaintiff, took him to the HongkongHouse, Calcutta and he was compelled to sign some papers. Subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that he was made to execute a resolution and/or ...
James Finlay and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR423(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference relates to the assessmentyears 1970-71 and 1971-72. This reference arises out of certain ordersfor the imposition of penalty for those two assessment years. In the proceedings for assessment to tax for those years, the assessee did not disclose the interest receivable from Speciality Papers Ltd, and M/s. Bags &Cartons; for which the ITO started penalty proceedings and as theminimum penalty leviable exceeded Rs. 1,000, he referred the cases to theIAC under Section 274(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. When the IAC took up thepenalty proceedings, he held that the assessee had concealed the particularsof the income. He further held that till December 31, 1967, interestincome was shown on accrual basis though it was not received and theloans were advanced as early as 1963 in the case of Speciality PapersLtd. and in 1966 in the case of M/s. Bags & Cartons. He also mentionedthat there was no indication that the assessee had changed the methodof accounting in...
Officer-in-charge, Customs, Berhampur Preventive Unit Vs. Minati Biswa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC219,1983(12)ELT798(Cal)
ORDERN.C. Chaudhuri, J.1. In this petition under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. the order dated 6-3-81 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, District Murshidabad in NGR 679/79-TR 489/79 is called in question. By the said order opposite party No. 1 Minati Biswas was convicted of an offence under Section 4(1) of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 25 days. Simultaneously the articles seized, that is to say, 369 pieces of compact cassettes made in Japan were confiscated to the State, inspite of a petition dated 13-3-80 filed by the petitioner Officer-in-Charge, Customs Berhampore Preventive Unit, Berhampore, Murshidabad filed before the learned Magistrate. On 13-5-79 the police searched the house of O.P. No. 1, seized the articles mentioned above and forwarded the opposite party No. 1 to the learned Magistrate under arrest giving rise to the case noted above. In the petition afores...
Chiranjib Prosad Roy Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal21
ORDERS.N. Sanyal, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the C. P. C. and it is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri dated June 7, 1978 condoning the delay and admitting the appeal preferred by the opposite party against the judgment and decree in Money Suit No. 19 of 1974 of the learned Munsif, Alipurduar. The petitioner obtained the said decreeagainst the opposite party on Sept. 29, 1977. The decree was drawn up on Oct. 8, 1977. The opposite party filed the appeal being Money Appeal No. 2 of 1978 before the learned District Judge on Jan. 24, 1978. The opposite party also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. The grounds alleged by the opposite party were that certified copies of the judgment and decree were received in the Head Office of the opposite party on Dec. 21, 1977. These papers could not however be put up immediately before the Competent Authority for decision regarding filing of the...
Gita Devi Hariwal Vs. Chitta Ranjan Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal13
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. In these cases the Rules were issued under Article 227 of the Constitution and interim stay of the proceedings namely under Section 29-B of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act in R. C. Case No. 69 of 1981 and in R. C. Case No, 70 of 1981 were granted. The opposite party filed an application Under Section 29B of the West Bengal PremisesTenancy Act against the petitioners. These applications need not be valued although they are in the nature of eviction suits and a court-fee of 75 paise is affixed to the Petitions. Against the order of the learned Rent Controller, the present petitioners have come up in revision under Article 227 of the Constn. as there is no appeal or second appeal provided against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller Under Section 29B of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In filing the present applications under Article 227 of the Constn. the petitioners have valued the applications at Rs. 1,100/- only in both cases. The ...
Nikhil Kumar Saha Vs. Hedayat Ali Molla and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal401,86CWN766
ORDERS.N. Sanyal, J. 1. The petitioner Nikhil Kumar Saha filed a suit for specific performance on May 16. 1975 on the allegation that the opposite party No. 1 agreed to sell the disputed land to the petitioner for Rs. 2,300/- and executed and registered an agreement for sale on August 12, 1974 on receipt of the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The opposite party No. 2 is related to the opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2, though aware of the agreement for sale, obtained a fictitious deed of sale from the opposite party No. 1. In spite of repeated demands of the petitioner, they refused to execute any deed of sale. The petitioner thereafter instituted the suit. On April 4, 1978 the suit was decreed on the following terms: 'That the suit and the same is hereby decreed on contest with costs against the deft. No. 2 and decreed ex parte without costs against the deft. No. 1. The plaintiff be entitled to have the al-leged contract specifically enforced against the defts. The plaintiff shall deposi...
Md. Yunus Vs. Nabi Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal488,86CWN673
B.N. Maitra, J.1. Title Suits Nos. 577 and 578 of 1976 and 258 of 1978 were heard together. The main dispute relates to the case set up by plaintiff in Title Suit No. 258 of 1978. He has alleged that the disputed property at premises No. 65, Mechuabazar Street, which was subsequently numbered as 155, Keshab Chandra Sen Street, belonged to one Sk. Munna as a tenant. He erected structures thereon. By a kobala dated 8-11-1917, he sold that property to Md. Hossain and All Hossain, who are sons of one Sk. Abdul. Sk. Amir was Abdul's elder brother and had no issue. He brought UD the plaintiff as his foster son. By a registered sale deed executed on the 26th July, 1924, Md. Hossain transferred his 8 annas share in the property to his brother, Ali Hossain. Then by a registered conveyance dated 25th Mar., 1926, Ali Hossain transferred that property to the plaintiff. The latter had great respect for Ali Hossain. That property was occupied by Sk. Amir, Sk. Abdul and the members of their family in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›