Kolkata Court August 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.
income-tax Officer Vs. Century Enka Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1983
Reported in: [1986]17ITD581(Cal)
ORDERPer Shri B. C. Mitra, Accountant Member - The original surtax assessment in the assessees case for the assessment year 1975-76 was completed as per the ITOs order under section 6(2) of the companies (Profits) Surtax Act 1964 (the Act) dated 16-1-1979, on a net chargeable profit of Rs. 1,44,12,170 as against net chargeable profit of Rs. 51,07,242 as shown by the assessee in its surtax return. In computing the net chargeable profit as aforesaid, the ITO took into consideration a sum of Rs. 35,50,000 as reflected in the balance sheet under the head Reserve against export obligation as a reserve, for the purpose of computing the capital of the assessee-company for purposes of allowing standard deduction in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act. Subsequently, the ITO issued a notice dated 20-2-1981, under section 13 of the Act requiring the assessee-company to show causes why the assessment be not rectified as there was an apparent mistake in the original ass...
Amalendu Santra Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal330
ORDERChittatosh Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner who is a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, was a candidate for admission to Master of Surgery (General) Course. 1982 of the Calcutta University. But he was not successful in the written test conducted by the Council of Post-Graduate Studies in Medicine. Calcutta University. The petitioner has. inter alia, prayed for commanding the respondent to cancel all the proceedings relating to the said test held for selection of candidates for admission to the M. S. (General Surgery) of Calcutta University. 1982. to forbear from giving effect to the said test and for conducting scrutiny and review of the petitioner's answer script. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to admit him to the said Post-Graduate course after proper evaluation of his merit by granting him full marks for correctly answered questions irrespective of model answers and irrespective of the impugned results of the test.2. While issuing this Rule on 20th De...
Aparna Basu Mallick Vs. Bar Council of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Cal461,87CWN936
M.M. Dutt, J.1. In this appeal the appellant Smt. Aparna Basu Mallick has challenged the propriety of the judgment of a single Judge of this Court discharging the Rule Nisi issued on her application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The appellant is an M. A. in Political Science of the Calcutta Universily and an M. A. in Modern History of the Rabindra Bharati University. After obtaining the Master's Degree, the appellant started prosecuting her studies in L.L.B. Course of the Calcutta University. At that time, Regulation 35 of the Calcutta University First Regulations, 1951 framed under the Calcutta University Act, 1951 was as follows :'A woman candidate may be allowed to appear as a non-collegiate student (1) at the preliminary Law Examination one year after her graduation from this University. (2) at the Intermediate Law Examination one year after passing the Preliminary Law Examination, and (3) at the Final Law Examination one year after her passing the Intermediate ...
inspector General of Police, Cabinet (Vigilance) Dept. Govt. of Bihar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1983
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1703
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance) preferred by the State of Bihar through its authorised authority, namely, the Inspector General of Police, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department. The order impugned is the one dt. Aug. 5, 1982, passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore, dismissing an application for attachment made by the appellant under Section 3 of the said Ordinance. It was so dismissed not on merits but on the point of maintainability. That application for attachment was undisputedly a second such application, earlier application having lapsed, and the only point which arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether a second such application could be entertained in law when the earlier one was rendered frustrated before it could be brought to its legitimate end It would be necessary to refer to the facts in the background which may be set out briefly as follows.2...
Mohammadbhai Sk. Mohsinbhoy and ors. Vs. Trustees for the Improvement ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal219
ORDERMonjula Bose, J.1. The petitioner herein seeks to be added as a party-defendant to the proceedings by reason of the fact that during the pendency of the present suit an agreement for sale of the suit premises was entered upon between himself and the defendant No. 3, the owner of the suit property, under which agreement be claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 37,656/- to the defendant No. 3.2. The present suit filed by the plaintiffs against, inter alia, the defendant No. 3 is for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of an agreement for sale of the suit-property upon payment of the balance sum of the purchase money to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who had acquired the property under the Land Acquisition Act. It is not disputed that the plain-tiffs purchased the property at an auction sale held by the defendant No. 1, who admittedly bad a statutory right of preemption to purchase the land in the event of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 deciding to sell the s...
National Cotton Mills and ors. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1983
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas222(Cal),87CWN1038
Chakrabarti, J. 1. These revision cases arise out of as many cases under Section 159/162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the complaints made by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, alleging violation of the provisions of Section 159 of the Act. The petitioner company and some of its officers obtained the present rules for quashing the prosecutions pendingagainst them in different Courts of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The cases have been heard together and this order shall govern all of them.2. Mr. Chakraborti, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all these cases, contends that the learned Magistrates erred in law in taking cognizance of the cases without examining the complainant or his witnesses, that the company had been previously given exemption from filing returns due to circumstances beyond their control on account of the Indo-Pak War, that the company is also entitled to exemption for subsequent periods as well, that the company is also entitled t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›