Kolkata Court July 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.
Bhuth Nath Mondal and ors. Vs. Kalipada Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal534
Amitabha Dutta, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Midnapur remanding the suit for retrial on a particular issue after giving the plaintiff opportunity to amend the plaint.2. The material facts of the case are not in dispute. Neinai Mondal of Bar Chimutia P. S. Tamluk was separate from his five brothers and had considerable properties. He married thrice to have a son and his third surviving wife was Jhanadamoyee. Ha brought up Rakhal, son of his brother Titu. Nemai Mondal made absolute dedication of his properties to two duties viz, Shree Shree Iswar Radeshyam Jew Thakur and Shree Shree Iswar Parameswar Jew Thakur installed by him under two deeds of endowment dated 2-8-1926 and 6-8-1926, appointing himself as the sole shebait. He prescribed the mode of devolution of shebaitship in tha following manner : After his death his son and thereafter his wife and if no son is born to him his wife Jnanadamoyee will be the ne...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chowdhury Metal Depot
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR692(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. For the assessment years 1968-69, and 1969-70, under Section 256(1) of the I.T, Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rules 22 to 24 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to registration ?' 2. The assessee-firm was constituted by a deed of partnership dated 31st December, 1965, consisting of six partners and one Bhimchand Mangalchand Chowdhury, a minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership. After reciting the shares of the parties it has been set out by the Tribunal in a statement of the case which contained, inter alia, the following clauses : '12. On and from the first day of month next succeeding the month in which the said Bhimchand Mangalchand Chowdhuri attains majority, he shall, if he elects to be a partne...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hercules Trading Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1982
Reported in: [1983]143ITR504(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal to this court Under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the rents receivable by the assessee-company in respect of the requisitioned premises of which it was a monthly tenant, as per the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee-company maintaining its accounts under the mercantile system '2. The assessee is a private limited company. It maintained accounts on the mercantile system with the previous year as the calendar year. The relevant assessment year was 1970-71 and the total income was assessed by the ITO at Rs. 1,44,437 inclusive of Rs. 45,996 as income from other sources in respect of the requisitioned portion of the premises at 'Stephen House'. The ITO observed that the circumstances being the same as in the last year, the rent receivable fro...
Phanindra Nath Dey Vs. Bholanath Banerjeee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal397,87CWN102
Amitabha Dutta, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Bankura affirming the decision of the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Bankura in Title Suit No. 92 of 1974 for ejectment of a premises tenant, arrears of rent and compensation.2. The plaintiff brought the suit on 9-9-1974 alleging that the defendant was a monthly tenant in the suit premises comprising a drawing room and eastern portion of a covered verandah of the plaintiff's building in holding No. 315A of Lohar Moholla of Bankura Municipality at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- per month payable according to Bengali Calendar month; that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent since Chaitra, 1377 B.S.; that the plaintiff reasonably requires the suit premises for his own occupation as owner; and that a valid notice of ejectment was served on the defendant by registered post on behalfof the plaintiff which the defendant refused to receive, terminating his tenancy on the expiry...
Smt. Tarala Hazra and anr. Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1874
Nirmal Chandra Mukherji, J.1. This Rule arises on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ and/or order or orders and/or direction in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus in the matter of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Andamans, directing Ajoy Kumar Jyoti Hazra to be detained in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The application has been filed by Tarala Hazra, mother and Babul Hazra, brother of the detenu. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows:2. The detenu is a popular Trade Union Leader of Andaman. He is President of Saffai Karmachari Union of the Municipal Board of Andaman. The Andaman Municipal Board which is controlled by the Congress (I) Party has denied the employment of 300 Harijan workers who have become the members of the Saffai Karmachari Union. Industrial dispute has been raised on that regard and the same is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Andaman. On be...
Ramesh Shah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1982
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC196,1983(13)ELT882(Cal)
Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This Rule is directed against the claim of the Central Excise authorities for payment of excise duties in respect of 'Phone-corn'. It is alleged by the petitioner that they are nothing but telephone and therefore not exempted from duties. It has been alleged that 'Phone-corn' cannot be a telephone under the Indian Telephone Act and it is well known that business of telephone can only be carried out by the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Deptt. In any case, this 'phono-corn' is manufactured by a private company for intercommunication system and therefore this cannot be called as telephone as manufactured by the Govt. of India.In that view of the matter there is no merit in the submission made by the petitioner.2. The Rule is therefore discharged. There will be no order as to costs.3. I am told that Mr. Justice M.N. Roy took the similar view in C.R. 15407 (w) of 1976 (Radio Supply Storage (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.), decided on 18-5-1982....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›