Kolkata Court September 1983 Judgments
Dhirendra Nath Sadhukhan Vs. Tinkari Sadhukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal397,1983(2)CHN343,(1983)2CompLJ297(Cal),88CWN147
N.G. Chaudhuri, J.1. One Kiron Bala Dassi was the owner of the property in question namely, a dwelling house in 107, Panchanantala Road, P. S. Bally. She sold the undivided eastern half of the house by a kobala to Uttam and Amulya Sadhukhan. By a second kobala she sold the western half of the said house to aforesaid Amulya and his wife's brother Sudhanya Sadhukhan. Subsequently Uttam sold his share in the property to Amulya who has since died. Sudhanya has sold his share in the property to the appellant.2. Respondents, as heirs of Amulya, brought a suit for partition; and a decree in preliminary form has been passed declaring their 12 annas share and appellant's 4 annas share in the suit property, overruling the appellant's plea of previous partition. Subsequent thereto respondents filed a petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for purchasing the share of the appellant on the footing that he was a stranger-purchaser in relation to the d...
Tag this Judgment!Bholanath Karmakar Vs. Sailendra Nath Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal319,88CWN228
Anil K. Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal from an appellate decree. The subject matter of challenge is the judgment and decree dated June 19, 1978, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 300 of 1975 reversing those dated Aug. 2. 1975, passed by the learned Munsif. Ghatal in Title. Suit No. 125 of 1972. That was a suit for partition and the defendant is the appellant before this court. The only question which has been agitated in this appeal before us is 'as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act when the stranger purchaser has neither sued for partition nor has prayed for partition and separate allotment of the share purchased by him. 2. The suit property consists of three plots being Dag Nos. 2010, 2011 of Khatian No. 676 and Dag No. 2012 of Khatian No. 897 of Mouza Kharar set out in Schedules Ka and Kha to the plaint. On the settlement records all those plots are non-agricultural in nature and while pl...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1983
Reported in: 1984(3)ECC200
C. Mookerjee, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 company, claims to be the owner of Girish Chandra Tea Estate situated in the District of Darjeeling. Petitioner No. 2 is a director and shareholder of the petitioner No. 1, company. The petitioner No. 1 company, has been carrying on inter alia, business of growing tea plants and of plucking and selling green tea leaves. In this rule, the petitioners have challenged the validity of levy upon green tea leaves of rural employment cess under the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act 1976 (West Bengal Act 14 of 1976). 2. Mr. Sitesh Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has, inter alia, submitted that the West Bengal Rural Development and Production Act, 1956, imposes the said cess not upon the land comprised in tea estates but upon tea despatched from the garden and therefore the said legislation does not come within the ambit of entry No. 49, List II, in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. According to Mr. Roy, Parliament...
Tag this Judgment!indo-japanese Industries Limited Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Exci ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-23-1983
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT527(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The petitioners in this case have challenged the legality and validity of an order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta. XIII Division. By the said order dated 25th June, 1981 the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, the Respondent No. 1 herein, directed the petitioner to maintain statutory Central Excise records and observe the formalities and clear all the excisable products 'including Cycle Dynamo Lamp and Parts' falling under T.I. 68 on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty if the total value of such goods cleared during the preceding financial year exceeded Rs. 30,00,000. In that order it was clarified that Cycle Dynamo Lamp and Parts thereof were accessories and not parts of cycle and hence, were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1st March, 1975.2. The petitioners' case is that since its inception, it is engaged in the manufacture of, inter alia, Cycle Dynamo Lighting Sets which can only be used...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bengal National Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas956(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. In November and December, 1982, three petitions being Company Petitions Nos. 544, 551 and 581 of 1982 were filed for winding-up Bengal National Textile Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' the company '), respectively, by Eastern Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd., Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. On February 9, 1983, Company Petition No. 551 of 1981 was admitted and directions for advertisements were given. CompanyPetition No. 581 of 1982 was thereafter admitted on February 16, 1983, arid directions for advertisements were again obtained.2. Advertisements were published on March 11, 1983, in Company Petition No. 581 of 1982. On March 30, 1983, the said company petition came up for further hearing when a number of creditors, including the petitioners in Company Petitions Nos. 544 and 551 of 1982, appeared and supported the petitioning creditor. The application was adjourned after directions were given for filin...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ram Peary Debi Kanoria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal215,[1984]150ITR719(Cal)
Padma Khastgir, J.1. Union of India filed a suit for a declaration that the two deeds of settlement both dated 22nd of March. 1957 and 25th of March, 1967 were not binding upon the creditors including the plaintiff of Smt. Rampeary Debi Kanoria.2. The original defendant Rant Peary Debi Karioria was the widow of Ram Ballav Kanoria. For the purpose of income-tax she was assessed at Benaras previously. But since the assessment year 1952-53 she waa being assessed at Calcutta. The assessment for the year 1952-53 was completed on or about 29th March, 1957 and a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- was included in the said assessment as undisclosed and secreted income. There were outstanding dues towards income-tax from the said Ram Peary Debi Kanoria. Full particulars had been given in para 2 of the plaint. The said Ram Peary Debi Kanoria failed and neglected to pay the said sum assessed against her.3. During the course of assessment forthe year 1951-52 she collusively with theintent to delay or defeat the...
Tag this Judgment!G. Cariappa Vs. Mrs. Leila Sinha Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal105,88CWN83
Amitabha Dutta, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the decree of the learned Judge, IVth Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta in a suit for eviction of an ex-licencee and recovery of arrears of licence fees and electric charges and of mesne profits, which is answered by a claim of tenancy right in the suit property raised in the written statement of the defendant.2. The facts are reasonably clear from the testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant who are the only witnesses and the letter (Ext. 1) written by the defendant and his companions to the plaintiff in September 1969 before entering into the suit property. The plaintiff and her husband Maj. General S. B. S. Roy lived in Flat No. 64 in the 5th Floor of Queen's Mansions at 12, Park Street, Calcutta of which her husband was a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs. 265/-per month under the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The said flat comprised three rooms, drawing room, bath room and kitchen. The plaintiff's husband d...
Tag this Judgment!Tolaram Jalan Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD261(Kol.)
1. Through this appeal the assessees challenges the initiation of proceedings for reassessment under clause (a) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the assessment year 1973-74. The addition of Rs. 3,70,000 made to the assessee's total income is also assailed on merits. The facts bearing on the controversy may be first noted.2. The assessee, in the present case was one Shri M.L. Jalan who has since expired. These proceedings are being now prosecuted by his legal heirs Shri Tolaram Jalan and others. Shri M.L. Jalan, while he was alive had given guarantee to the State Bank of India in respect of the various loans and cash credit facilities which the said bank had given to India Jute Co. Ltd. From the letter of the State Bank of India, dated 19-11-1975 , it appears that the said guarantee was given by Shri M.L. Jalan initially in the year 1956 'presumably because he was then a member of the board of directors of the above-named company'. Shri M.L.Jalan did...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Damani Vs. RamnaraIn Agarwal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Cal162
ORDERMonjula Bose, J.1. This application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeks, inter alia, withdrawal of Title Suit No. 60 of 1982 (Shri R. N. Agarwal v. Shri Krishna Kumar Agar-wal) from the Court of 3rd Subordinate Judge. Alipore, for being tried subse-quent to the disposal of the petitioner's prior suit being No. 51 of 1982 (KrishnaKumar Agarwal v. Ramnarain Agarwal and Ashoka Housing Corporation) now pending for disposal in the Original Side of this Court.2. In the earlier suit being No. 51 of 1982 instituted in this Court on January 28, 1982 the plaintiff sought the following reliefs.(a) A declaration that the plaintiff is a nominee of the first defendant for the purchase of Flat No. 8B and Garage No. 8B at Ashoka at 111. Southern Avenue. Calcutta, more fully described in Annexure 'A' to the plaint: (b) a decree for specific performance of agreements for sale dated October 10, 1975 and May 13, 1977. entered into betw...
Tag this Judgment!Sasadhar Samanta Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Cal166
Jyotirmoyee Nag, J. 1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Burdwan in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1968 affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif passed in Title Suit No. 114 of 1967. The reliefs sought for by the plaintiff-appellant is in respect of the lands described in Schedule A(1), B, B(1), C and C(1). The plaintiff seeks for declaration that the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to retain the lands described in the said Schedules of the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent, State of West Bengal from interfering with the plaintiff-appellant's peaceful possession of the same. In the plaint, there is an alternative prayer for declaration of the plaintiffs right to retain and for permanent injunction in respect of plot Nos. 373 and 349 under Khatian No. 510 and plot Nos. 349 and 370 under khatian No. 511 and an area of 21 cents of plot No. 353 under khatian No. 511 o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »