Kolkata Court February 1983 Judgments
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Brijmohan Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Cal353
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This appeal raises various questions about an order of suspension of a dealer appointed under the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 and also challenges an enquiry into certain alleged complaints as to why the dealership of the respondent should not be cancelled. Before we deal with the questions raised in this appeal, which are many and various, it will be relevant to refer to certain facts which the learned Trial Judge has noted. 2. One Brij Mohan Gupta, who was the original petitioner before the learned Trial Judge, was appointed the authorised Rationing dealer under the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. He is the Proprietor of a Ration Shop No. 3437 at 166/4, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Calcutta. On the 19th Dec. 1981 the officers of the Food Department, Government of West Bengal seized certain records of the said shop, being registers, books of accounts and cash memos and removed the same from the shop. The petitioner thereafter and on the same day filed a c...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sankar Kumar Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Cal250,87CWN400
ORDERAmitabha Dutta, J.1. This revisional application tinder Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order dated 4-1-83 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 1983 staying the operation of an ex parte order of ad interim injunction dated 22-12-82 made by the learned Munsif-in-charge 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 256 & of 1982.2. It appears that on 23-12-82 thepetitioner along with opposite party NO.2 filed Title Suit No. 256 of 1982 in theFirst Court of Munsif, Hooghly againstthe defendant-opposite party No. 1, Dun-lop India Limited challenging the orderof suspension and the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner by the defendants' letters Nos. CS/2/82 and CS/1/82dated 26-11-82 respectively. The plaintiffalso filed a petition under Order 39, Rule 1and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for anorder of temporary injunction againstthe defendant restraining it from givingeffect to the said charge-sheet and alsofrom takin...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Khaitan Vs. State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ877
ORDERP.C. Borooah, J.1. The instant Rule was issued by me on Jan. 11, 1983 treating a letter dated Jan. 10, 1983 of Mr. Rajesh Khaitan along with two reports appearing in the Statesman and the Telegraph as a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution calling upon the State of West Bengal through the Secretary, Jails and Panchayuts Department the Inspector General of Prisons and the Superintendent of the Dum Dum Central Jail to show why appropriate writs should not be issued directing them to show cause why the provisions of the Jail Code should not be strictly enforced in re-card to the prisoners confined in the Dum Dum Central Jail and as to why the prisoners should not he provided with adequate food, clothing, medicines and other necessary facilities essential for the maintenance of the human life and health. The respondents were also directed to produce all the relevant records relating to the death of the late Santosh Bag explaining as to how and tinder what circumstances the said...
Tag this Judgment!Paper House Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD301(Kol.)
1. The first ground by the assessee in the present appeal is that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3)/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), is time-barred and void ab initio and without jurisdiction.2. From the order of the ITO dated 26-9-1980, it is seen that the assessee followed mercantile method of accounting and its year of account ended on 31-12-1976. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B. The provisions of Section 144B came into play as the ITO initially proposed to assess the income at a much higher figure than the returned income. Section 144B provides that when the ITO proposed to make any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the assessee and the amount of such variation exceeds Rs. 1,00,000 (in the instant case), the ITO at the first instance, shall forward a draft of the proposed order of the assessment to the assessee. ft also provides that on receipt of the draft order, the assessee ma...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Subodh Kumar U. Mehta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1983
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC180
N.G. Chaudhuri, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the Union of India represented by the Assistant Collector of Customs, West Bengal, is directed against the order of acquittal dated 30th November, 1976, under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, passed in Case No. C/2019 of 1969 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta. The prosecution case was that at the material time accused Subodh Kumar Mehta was a tenant in respect of room No. 25 in premises No. 150A, Lower Chitpore Road, Calcutta. On receipt of secret information regarding storage of wrist watches of foreign origin in the aforesaid room, the Customs Officers under authority of search order issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs went to search the room. The raiding party after keeping watch on the room for sometime caused the padlock of the said room to be opened on 22nd November, 1966, in the presence of the police officers, representative of the landlord and independent witnesses, searched the room and recove...
Tag this Judgment!Nikhil Chandra Sen Vs. Ajit Chandra Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal31,87CWN426
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif. Second Additional Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 38 of 1973 of his Court.2. The respondent (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) instituted the suit for eviction of the appellant (hereinafter called the defendant) from the suit premises which comprises the entire first floor of Premises No. 9B Rani Sankari Lane, consisting of four bed-rooms, one kitchen and other appurtenances. The plaintiffs' case in short is as follows :--The premises in suit belongs to the four plaintiffs of whom plaintiff No. 2 is married and has two children besides his wife. They have no other house. The other plaintiffs are still unmarried and are unable to marry for want of adequate accommodation available to them in the suit house. They are in occupation of the second floor of the house, the ground floor being in the pos...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Mondal and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal14
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application by the State of West Bengal for setting aside the award dated 22-4-32. In the petition it is alleged that the petitioner received the notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act on 13-8-82 informing the petitioner that the award had been filed on 16-7-80. In para. 12 of the Affidavit-in--Opposition the respondent alleged that the petitioner had notice of filing of the award by respondent's letter dated 16-7-82 which was received by the petitioner's Executive Engineer on 17-7-82. In reply dated 30-7-82 the petitioner informed the respondent , that the petitioner was taking steps for making payment under the award. According to the respondent the present application was taken out on 13-9-82, clearly beyond 30 days from 17-7-82 and the application was barred by limitation. In the Affidavit-in-reply the petitioner did not dispute the receipt of the respondent's letter dated 16-7-82 on 17-7-82. This letter dated 16-7-82 and the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Debabrata Mukherjee Vs. Kalyan Kumar Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Cal241,87CWN508
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 24, 1981, passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 999 of 1980. That was a suit under Section 49 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 as adopted for the State of West Bengal. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge has dismissed the suit on a preliminary issue holding the suit to be barred by principles of res judicata and the only point raised now before us is how for the learned Judge is right in his conclusion as such. It would be necessary to refer to the facts with reference to which such a plea was raised and those are set out shortly as fellows :2. The defendant-respondent Kalyan Kumar Roy (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was admittedly the tenant in respect of the suit premises, being Suit No. 18 on the 3rd floor of premises No. 26, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, under the Official Trustee of We...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Nand Kishore Kansal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1983
Reported in: 1985(22)ELT721(Cal)
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This is an appeal against an appellate order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, 7th Bench of the City Sessions Court at Calcutta. 2. The respondent Nand Kishore Kansal was prosecuted on a charge under Section 135 (a), (b), Customs Act, 1962, for having in his possession wrist watches, and other consumer goods, fountain pens of foreign origin and purchasing these smuggled goods which were kept concealed in the shop styled Messrs. H. Mohanlal & Co., situated at New Market, Calcutta, of which he was the partner-in-charge of the business. He was found guilty by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default R.I. for 6 months more. The seized goods, namely, material exhibits I and II were ordered to be confiscated.3. On appeal to the City Sessions Court, the learned lower appellate court found that the goods not having been recovered from the person of the accused independent of his c...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Electric Lamp Works Ltd. Vs. Sukdev Chandra Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Cal389
C.K. Banerji, J.1. This ig an appeal from the judgment and decree dated 11th May. 1981 passed by Shri S. N. Banerjee, Judge. XIII Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in the ejectment suit herein instituted by the respondent, the landlord, against the appellant, the tenant, inter alia for the recovery of possession of the furnished ground floor Flat No. I at premises No. 11, Hungerford Street Calcutta,2. The case of the landlord is that the appellant was a monthly tenant under him in respect of the said flat at a rent of Rupees 900.00 per month according to the English calendar. At the time of the inception of the tenancy the appellant became a tenant for a period of two years only commencing from 1st Mar., 1973 till the end of Feb., 1975, the terms and conditions whereof were recorded in a letter dated 12th Feb., 1973 written by the appellant to the landlord. At the request of the appellant the period of the said tenancy was extended by the landlord for a further period of two ye...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »