Kolkata Court May 1984 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.
Bachhraj Baid and anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC370(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. M/s. Eastern Trading Company, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and which at the material time had the petitioners and one Smt. Kankan Wari Baid as partners, carried on the business of selling various articles and luxury goods, apart from dealing with hire-purchase agreement of those articles and were registered dealers both under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as the said Bengal Act) and also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Central Act). The said Smt. Kankan Wari Baid died on or about 9th May, 1973 and it has been stated that after her death, her heirs and legal representatives did not join the petitioners in the said partnership business and the intimation of carrying on such business by the petitioners, was given to the respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer concerned.2. It was the case of the petitioners that thereafter four applications were moved under A...
Govt. of West Bengal Vs. Nitya Gopal Basak and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ202
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. Nitya Gopal Basak, Biswanath Basak and Hari Gopal Basak, the three respondents in this appeal, were placed on trial before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, llth Court, Calcutta, pursuant to a charge-sheet submitted by the Police, with charges under & 63 Copyright Act, 1957, and under Section 78, Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, framed against them. The former was based on the allegation that they knowingly infringed the copyright of the Bengali book 'Adarshalipi-O Saral Barna parichay' owned by Sri Sita Nath Basak. The other was for falsifying trade mark in respect of the said book and for being in possession of dyes, blocks and other instruments for that purpose. Against Nitya Gopal Basak and Biswanath Basak a separate charge under Section 79, Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958, was also framed on the ground that they had sold and had in their possession for sale, and for other purposes of trade, spurious copies of the said book. The trial ended...
Rundibala Roy Vs. Putubala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal47,88CWN877
ORDERAsha Mukul Pal, J. 1. This revisional application arising out of Section 115 of the Civil P. C. made by Rundibala Roy. second wife of late Nagendra Nath Roy and her minor sons is directed against judgment and order passed by Sri S. N. Milra. Munsif. Khatra on 31-5- 1979 whereby he allowed J. Misc. Case No. 11, 77 and J. Misc. Case No. 1/79 arising oul of Title Execution Case No. 6/76 and 1, 77 respectively and further declaring (herein that Putubala was entitled to execute for Rs. 724/- as maintenance for the year 1381-82 B.S. and also to execute for Rs. 387/- against the judgment-debtors as would appear from his order) and finally declaring that the main execution case by Putuhala would be proceeded with. 2. The ease of Putubala is that Nagendru Nath Roy married her in 1945, She lived with him for about four years. In 1955 Nagendra Nath drove her away from his house and refused to maintain her. In 1954 Nagendra Nath Roy married again and R-undibala (one of the petitioners hereint...
Hooghly Chinsurah Municipality Vs. Napilal Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Cal197,88CWN760
Sukumar Chakravarty, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 262 of 1974, affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the learned Munsif 1st Court. Hooghly in Title Suit No. 203 of 1971.2. The Executive Officer of Hooghly-Chinsurah Municipality as plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of arrear of taxes amounting to Rs. 615-75 p. and for a declaration of charge on the defaulting holding. Plaintiff's case in brief was that Rs. 84-37 p. had been assessed as a total tax for each quarter in respect of the disputed holding No. 26/20 Ward No. 14 Mahulla Goaltuli, Chinsurah and defendant No. 1, Nanilal Ghosh was liable to pay the tax for that holding. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 2 came on record claiming interest in the holding by dint of purchase. Despite demands no payment of arrear taxes had been made by the defendants. The plaintiff accordingly f...
In Re: Modern Furnishers (interior Designers) (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1984
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas858(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The material facts, not in dispute, resulting in the present proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, are as follows:2. One Dhirendra Nath Mallick had been carrying on business since 1920 under the name and style of ' Modern Furnishers' as the sole proprietor thereof. R. N. Banerji, respondent No. 2 herein, was an employee of Dhirendra in the said business.3. Some time in 1940, Dhirendra became a tenant in a portion of premises No. 38, Park Mansions, Park Street, Calcutta, which was used as a showroom and office of the said business.4. On February 8, 1963, Dhirendra and respondent No. 2 constituted a partnership under the existing name ' Modern Furnishers'. The said partnership was registered. Respondent No. 2 was allotted 2 annas share in the said partnership while Dhirendra retained the balance 14 annas share. The tenancy in the said premises at Park Street, Calcutta, was transferred in favour of the partnership.5. Dhirendra died intes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›