Kolkata Court February 1983 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.
Jadu Nath Paul Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1983
Reported in: 1983LC793D(Calcutta)
Chittatosh Mukherjee, J.1. On 25th January, 1974 the petitioner had filed an application with the Customs Authorities for clearance of 566 bags of raw kapok imported from Bangla Desh. The petitioner declared that the said import was not liable to payment of import duty both basic and auxiliary, because the import of the said bags of kapok was made under 'balanced trade and payment arrangement'. The Customs Authority had allowed the petitioner to clear the said consignment without levying any import duty. On 1st March, 1978 the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, Appraisement Unit issued Memo No. C-VIII(6)1(a)/CAU/CUS/743749, stating that the petitioner had imported the aforesaid consignment of kapok from Bangla Desh on 25th January, 1974 after expiry of 'the limited payment arrangement' and at the relevant time 'the balanced trade and payment agreement' had come into force which did not extend to cover import of kapok. The petitioner was allowed to clear the said consignment with...
Md. KasimuddIn Vs. Yunus Ali Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ885
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 2 of Feb., 1975 acquitting the respondents 1 to 6 of charges under Section 120B read with Sections 467 and 420 of the Penal Code.2. Learned Advocates for the respondents took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal at the instance of the appellant. Their contention is that an appeal being a creature of the statute could only be preferred if there are adequate provisions in that behalf in the Code is self : Mr. Charkrabarty appearing on behalf of the State also supported the contention of the respondents. In this connection a reference was made to the provisions of Section 417 Sub-section (3) of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no dispute that the case is governed by the provisions of the old Code. Section 417 empowers the State Government to present an appeal from an original or appellate order of acquittal ...
Birendra Bahadur Pandey Vs. Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. and ors. Overruled
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal69
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment delivered and order passed by the learned trial Judge on 14-10-1982. The petitioner before the learned trial Judge and the main respondent in this appeal is the Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. which carries on the business of manufacture and sale of records and/or recordings and/or cassettes etc. Such recordings are carried out by the petitioner under the agreements with various composer artists and other performers. Under such agreements the writ petitioner became the owner, according to the writ petitioner, of the original plates and, in any event, the first owner of the copyright of the said records and musical compositions. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner complained that it had the exclusive right to reproduce and manufacture records and/or cassettes from the original plates and no other person has or had any other copyright or other right with regard thereto and the petitioner was the first owner of the copyright ...
Benode Behari Ghosal Vs. Shew Kamal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal122
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent obtained at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Such a suit was decreed concurrently by the two courts below but was dismissed by our learned brother Janah, J., on a second appeal preferred by the contesting defendants.2. The plaintiff's case shortly was that two brothers, Santosh and Atul, held a rayati holding under the then landlord Sushital Kumar Ghosh who on July 12, 1954 obtained a rent decree against the said two brothers in Rent Suit No. 150 of 1954. That decree was put into execution in Rent Execution Case No. 165 of 1954 and the holding being put to auction sale was purchased by the plaintiff on April 21, 1955. The sale was confirmed on May 21, 1955 and as one Mahadev Ahir put forward a claim of korfa tenancy under the judgment-debtor raiyats, the plaintiff started a proceeding under Section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and on January 28, 1958 an...
Kanai Sheet and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ527
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. 4 of April, 1975. Nine accused-persons were tried under Sections 395, 397 and 412. I. P. C. and also under Section 6(3), Explosives Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found eight accused persons guilty under Section 395, I, P. C, and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default to rigorous imprisonment for another five months.2. Having heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and having perused the judgment under appeal, we are satisfied that the prosecution case rests principally if not entirely on the identification of the accused persons held in test identification parade as also in identification in Court. So far as the identification held by the Magistrate in T. I, parade only one paper, namely exhibit 5, was brought into record. It appe...
Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. Hope (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Cal492
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application by M/s. Hope (Indial Ltd. under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award dated 30-8-1980. M/s. Hope (India) Ltd. entered into a contract for supply of goods to the respondentand indeed supplied certain quantity of the said goods. Thereafter disputes and differences arose relating to the said transaction. The contract between the parties contained an arbitration clause but the validity of the same was disputed. In that view of the matter, an application Under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act was taken out for determination of the existence and the validity of the said arbitration agreement being Matter No. 364 of 1977. The said application was heard by Mr. Sabyasachi Mukharji J., and it was held that there was a valid and subsisting arbitral ion agreement between the parties. Against that Order, M/s. Hope (India) Ltd. moved the Supreme Court and look out a special leave petition being S. L. Petition (Civi...
Associated Pigments Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1983
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC18,1983(13)ELT876(Cal)
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. In this three Rules the main question is whether or not the petitioner company, was entitled to claim exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of lead suboxide and lead monoxide manufactured in its factory in terms of the Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30th April, 1975 issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The Finance Act, 1975 had inserted in the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, now Tariff Item No. 68 under which 'all other goods not elsewhere specified manufactured in a factory' became subject to duty at the specified rate. In the exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government by the aforesaid Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30th April, 1975 had 'exempt goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (I of 1944) manufac...
Scientific Instrument and Chemical Company Vs. Vishwanath Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal235
N.G. Chaudhuri, J.1. This appeal directed against the order dated 22nd July 1981 passed by Mrs. Justice Khastgir refusingto set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner in suit No. 362 of 1973.2. From 2nd July, 1981 the suit appeared in the list. On 6-7-81 the suit was called on several times, issues were settled, evidence taken on commission formally tendered and relevant portions thereof placed. The appellant's counsel prayed for leave to retire and the suit was decreed ex parte. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed on 17-7-81 by Ranjit Das on behalf of the defendant under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. Code. In the said petition two things were principally alleged. The first plea was a plea of illness of Dr. S. Das, the Senior counsel of the petitioner and his inability to appear at the time the suit was called for hearing. The second and more important plea was that on the date in question that is 6th July, 1981 the petitioner was suffering from ba...
indra Prakash Karnani and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1983
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas662(Cal)
Chaudhuri, J.1. In this case arising out of an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. PC. 1973, and Article 227 of the Constitution, a prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings in Case No. G/2969 of 1975, in the fifth Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, and for setting aside the order dated October 11, 1979, passed in the said case.2. The aforesaid case before the Metropolitan Magistrate arose out of a petition of complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, under Section 209A(8) of the Companies Act, 1956, impleading the present petitioners as accused. It was alleged that Poobong Tea Co. Ltd. was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, on March 27, 1923, having its registered office at 44, Strand Road, Calcutta, and the accused were directors of the company. Pursuant to the provisions of Sub-section (2) read with Sub-section (5) of Section 209A of the Companies Act, 1956, the books of account and the other books of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›