Kolkata Court September 1982 Judgments
Debabrata Tarafder Vs. Biraj Mohan Bardhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal51,87CWN54
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal at the instance of the judgment-debtor directed against an order dated July 9, 1982, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, dismissing an objection under Section 47 of the C. P. C. read with Order 21, Rule 34 of the said Code. Since no appeal lies against an order dismissing an objection under Section 47 of the Code, the appellant had earlier filed an application in revision on notice to the decree-holder, being C. O. 2242 of 1982 which is being heard along with the appeal. Since the decree-holder had already entered appearance we admit the appeal, dispense with service of the notice of appeal and we proceed to dispose of both the appeal and the revisional application by this judgment of ours. 2. On April 28, 1977 (?), the present appellant entered into an agreement with the pre-sent respondent to sell the suit property which is a demarcated part of premises No. 2, Andul Raj Road, Calcutta, and which had been allotted to the sh...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Halder and ors. Vs. Nishikanta Bhandari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal266
ORDERNirmal Chandra Mukherji, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code and is directed against order No. 98 dated June 24, 1982, passed by the Minsif, First Court, Diamond Harbour, in Title Suit No. 509 of 1979. By the above order the learned Munsif rejected the petitioners' application praying for police protection for cultivating the suit lands, The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction on May 1979 being Title Suit No. 509 of 1979 against the opposite partyNos. 1 to 14 in the first. Court of the Munsif, Diamond Harbour. The defendants appeared and filed written statement. The petitioners made an application under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code. The defendants opposed the said application and the learned Munsif by order No. 95 dated April 20, 1982 passed an order in favour of the petitioners restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioners' possession in the suit lands except Plot No, 1529/2080. A copy of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Salkia Transport Associates
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Cal)198,[1983]143ITR39(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, JJ.1. At the instance of the CIT the two following questions of law have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the agency agreement dated March 29, 1963, and in particular Clause 10 thereof and having regard to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee-firm was the owner of the five new vehicles acquired at the cost of Rs. 1,88,464 and the assessee was entitled to depreciation in respect of the expenditure on the acquisition of those buses 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts received by the assessee from the persons to whom it sub-let the buses in the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 could be construed as premiums for parting with a...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sudebi Sundari Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal1,1983(1)CHN169,(1983)1CompLJ108(Cal)
ORDERM.N. Roy, J.1. This application and the other one in the case of Bidhu Bhushan Mondal v. State of West Bengal and others, having been, moved together and with notice to the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Mukherjee has appeared for the respondent State of West Bengal. He has filed his powers.2. The applications as sought to be moved were affirmed before Shri Biswa Nath Banerjee, Notary Public, Murshidabad and as such, a point arose as to whether applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be 'affirmed before a Notary Public.3. The Rules of our Court relating to application under Article 226 of the Constitution, lay down that every petition shall be verified by the solemn affirmation by the petitioner or person or persons having cognizance of the facts stated and shall state clearly by reference to the paragraphs of the petition whether the statements are based on knowledge, information and belief, or on records, where a statement is based on informatio...
Tag this Judgment!J. C. Talwar Vs. Wealth-tax Officer.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1982
Reported in: [1984]7ITD67(Cal)
ORDERPer Shri Anand Prakash, Accountant Member - These appeal are taken together as one of the grounds of appeal is common in all of them and, for the sake of convenience, these are disposed of by this common order.2. The controversy which is common in respect of all the years is with regard to the valuation of the property situated at B-34, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Up to the assessment year 1968-69, the said property was under the personal occupation of the assessee. Thereafter, one floor of it has been let out. The contention of the assessee before us is that the said property should be valued both by land and building method, but by applying the yield method. In support of it, he has relied upon the decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court the case of Sudesh Chandra Talwar dated 5-3-1981 in Matter Nos. 670, 671, 657, 656, 655 and 672 of 1977 (a copy of the unreported judgement has been placed on record).In the above case also the facts were similar and the decision of this Lord...
Tag this Judgment!Manmatha Nath Maity Vs. Sm. Provabati Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal198,87CWN190
S.N. Sanyal, J.1. This revisional application at the instance of the petitioner is directed against an order dated December 23. 1971 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, in Misc. Appeal No. 592/70 setting aside the ex parte decree in Title Suit No. 1064 of the Court of the leaned Subordinate Judge 7th Court, Alipore, on reversal of the order dated November 18, 1970 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No. 56 of 1969.2. The facts preceding the present Rule may be summarised as follows :Title Suit No. 10/64 was instituted in the 7th Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore, for eviction of the opposite parties and for injunction and mesne profits. The suit was dismissed on contest on March 30, 1968. The said decree was set aside in Title Appeal No. 924/68 on December 24, 1968. The case was sent back on remand for decision framing appropriate issues. The suit was thereafter decreed ex parte on November 19, 1969. D...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Digendra Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ2197
ORDERAmitabha Dutta, J.1. This Revisional application is directed against an order dt. 1-7-1982 in G. R. Case No. 563 of 1982 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar rejecting the prayer of the petitioners to accept their surrender in Court and release them on bail.2. The point at issue in this case is whether when any person accused of or suspected of the commission of a non-bailable offence appears before a court other than the H. C. or Court of Session and submits himself to the jurisdiction and order of the Court and applies for bail, his surrender can be accepted and application can be considered or not by the said Court.3. In this case it appears that a First Information Report was lodged with Police Station Falakata on 18-6-82 against the seven petitioners and some others alleging commission of offences under Sections 147/148/149/450/424/324/302 of the Indian Penal Code and the Police registered Case No. 10 dated 18-6-1982 being G. R. Case No. 563/82...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ram Badan Choubey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1960
ORDERAmitabha Dutta, J.1. These three revisional applications under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. 1973 are for quashing the proceedings of investigation by the police in connection with Barabani P.S. Case No. 8 dated 27-5-1982, Barabani P.S. Case No. 3 dated 16-6-1982 and Barabani P.S. Case No. 8 dated 17-7-1982 each under Section 30(2) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Amendment Act 1976 and Section 379 of the I.P.C. arising out of as many F.I.Rs. lodged by Sri J. S. Gill, Deputy C.M.E./Agent of Bhanora Golliery in the first case and by Sri S. K. Mukherji, Mining Adviser and Chief Mining Officer, Asansol in the other two cases alleging illegal extraction as of coal from Joyramdanga Colliery on different dates mentioned therein.2. It is not disputed that the petitioner Ram Badan Choubey was appointed Receiver in respect of Joyramdanga Colliery by the City Civil Court. Calcutta in Title Suit No. 436 of 1979; that as Receiver the petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›