Kolkata Court June 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.
Baisnab Das Sen Vs. Bholanath Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Cal118,88CWN860
Amitabha Dutta, J.1. This is an appeal by thedefendant/Judgment Debtor from an appellateorder dismissing his application under Section 47 ofthe Civil P.C. 2. Admittedly the respondent No. 1 Bholanath Sen as trustee of the Premises No. 171, Balaram Dey Street, appointed under a Deed of Trust D/- 8-7-1941 executed by Ram Das Sen, instituted Ejectment Suit No. 278 of 1954 against the appellant for eviction from a part of the said premises and obtained a decree which was passed on 15-2-1956 by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta. The said decree was affirmed in Special Appeal No. 99 of 1956 by an appellate Bench of the said Court and also in Second Appeal No. 1366 of 1960 by this Court. When the suit was pending in Second Appeal the beneficiary Tarak Nath Sen on his application was added a party respondent by an order made in Civil Rule No. 161/S of 1961 as it was considered desirable that the second appeal should be heard in his presence. After the ejectmen...
Sk. Abdul Gaffar Vs. Sudha Kanta Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal133,88CWN915
Sukumar Chakravarty, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 277 of J975 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Serampore in Title Suit No. 77 of 1973, and dismissing the suit.2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the transaction effected between theparties by the ostensible sale deed and the agreement for reconveyance in respect of the suit property on 26-4-1971 was a loan in substance and for restraining the defendants from disturbing plaintiffs possession in the suit property together with a prayer for the relief under Section 36 and 37A of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940.3. It was the case of the plaintiff that he took loan of Rs. 1000/- from the defendant 1 and as security for the loan plaintiff executed an ostensible sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendant 1 reciting therein Rs. 1450/- as the con...
Jadavendra Narayan Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal215
ORDERMookerjee, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing his suit against the State and other defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15000/- (fifteen thousand only) and interest in respect of the price of a diesel motor truck. It is no longer disputed that on 14th Oct, 1968 the plaintiff had delivered to the then Principal, Industrial Training Institute of the State Government situated at Malda the aforesaid diesel truck No. WGR 553 for the purpose of use of the same for imparting training at the Institute. The price was fixed at Rs. 15000/- (fifteen thousand only). It is also undisputed that no valid contract in accordance with Article 299 of the Constitution was made by and between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant-State on the other. Therefore the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to sue the defendant-State and other on the basis of any contractual obligation ...
Maneck Noshirwan Kaka and ors. Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas526(Cal)
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the three appellants against the judgment and order dated December 20, 1983, of D. K. Sen J. dismissing the application of the appellants under Sections 446 and 466 of the Companies Act 1956.2. The building being premises No. 12, Chowringhee Road and No. 1 Chowringhee Palace, Calcutta, admittedly belongs to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as ' the LIC '. The said building was in possession of the Ritz Continental Hotels Ltd., hereinafter referred to as ' the company ', by virtue of a deed of lease, dated November 30, 1973, executed by the LIC for a period of 25 years commencing from March 15, 1971, at a rent of Rs. 65,235'85 per month. The company defaulted in payment of rent and other charges to the LIC from April 1, 1974. The LIC by its advocate's letter forwarded to the company a statement of the outstanding dues of the company to the LIC amounting to about Rs. 10,00,000 from April. 1, 1974, up to Jul...
Collector of Customs Vs. Mitsuny Electronic Works
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1984
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC312,1987(30)ELT345(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. These three applications have been moved by the Customs Authorities for stay of the operation of the ex parte interim Orders dated 7th March, 1984 passed by A.K. Janah, 3. in three separate writ petitions in identical terms directing the Customs authorities to make assessment of the goods covered by several bills of entry submitted by the clearing Agents within three days of the receipt of the order and release of the goods forthwith. All the aforesaid three applications were moved by M/s Mitsuny Electronics Works, a proprietary concern of one Tapan Kumar Chatterjee. These three applications are heard together as the issues involved are identical. Elaborate arguments have been made on behalf of the Customs authorities as well as the writ petitioner and our order on the said three applications will dispose of not only the three stay applications and the appeals filed by the Customs authorities but the three writ petitions as well.2. On or about 21st January, 19...
Rukmanand Khaitan Vs. Jawala Dutt Lohia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal115
C. Mookerjee, J. 1. The plaintiffs respondents had instituted in the First Subordinate Judge's Court at Alipore, 24 parganas against the defendant appellant Title Suit No. 56 of 1973 under Section 36(6)(a)(i) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. The learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the said suit in the preliminary form. He has ordered that the decree passed by this Court on 14th Mar. 1973 on consent of parties and the transactions of loan between them be reopened and accounts between them be taken. Final decree would be made upon taking of the said accounts between the parties. Being, aggrieved thereby the defendant, Rukmanand Khaitan, has preferred this appeal.2. Before considering the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the respondents, we may briefly set out the salient facts of the case. It is no longer disputed that on diverse dates between 19th Sept. 1962 and 31st Mar. 1969 the defendant, Rukmanand Khaitan, who was an Insurance Agent, had advanced...
PremnaraIn Praveenkumar Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD272(Kol.)
1. The assessee is one of the partners in the firm Nainsukhdas Jainarain holding one-third share therein. The controversy involved in the present appeals concerns with the determination of the value of his share in the said firm. The said firm owns, inter alia, certain shares, the book value of which in respect of the various valuation dates was as follows : 2. The total value of all the assets of the firm on the respective valuation dates was as follows : year balance sheets of the respective years Rs. Rs. As against the above value of the assets, the capital of the partners as far as can be seen from the balance sheets in question was as follows, remaining amount being borrowings :Assessment Total capital of Borrowings Total year the partners Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.1977-78 12,99,431 6,97,166 19,96,5971978-79 11,58,214 8,87,515 20,46,0191979-80 13,41,380 11,29,306 24,70,686 3. The WTO computed the value of the assessee's share on the basis of his capital investment in the firm plus the propo...
Banshidhar Polley Vs. Sm. Kiran Bala Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Cal359
C. Mookerjee, J. 1. Sm. Kiran Bala Roy, the plaintiff-respondent herein, had instituted Title Suit No. 66 of 1962 in the 4th Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore, against her father, Srikrishna Polley and her brother, the petitioner, Sri Banshidhar Policy, as defendants 1 and 2, inter alia, for declaration that she had half share in Premises No. 5B, Ananda Banerjee Lane, P. S. Bhowanipore, and the two defendants jointly had the remaining half share, for partition by metes and bounds of the suit property and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with her possession. In her plaint Kiran Bala had stated that on 23rd July, 1962 her father Srikrishna Polley had purported to execute a fraudulant and collusive Deed of Gift in favour of his son, Banshidhar, in respect of half share of the suit property. But she did not pray for any relief in respect of the said deed in Banshidhar's favour.2. Srikrishan Polley, the defendant No. 1, had filed a written statement...
In Re: Gluco Series Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1984
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas227(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Debendra Nath Bhattacharya, since deceased, and Deb Kanta Roy were the promoters of Gluco Series P. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as 'the company') which was incorporated on November 11, 1959. At the incorporation of the company, Debendra subscribed for 1,000 shares and Deb Kanta subscribed for 200 shares of Rs. 100 each.2. The main object of the company is to manufacture and sell glucose of various types.3. The articles of association of the company provide, inter alia, as follows:'Article 7....the company shall be entitled to treat the registered holder of any share as the absolute owner thereof and accordingly shall not, except as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction or as by statute required, be bound to recognise any benami, equitable or other claim to/or interest in such share on the part of any other person.Article 29.--Number of directors shall not be less than two and more than seven until otherwise determined by general meeting.Article 30.--The fir...
Peico Electronics and Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1984
Reported in: (1984)10ITD285(Kol.)
1. This appeal involves a rather ticklish issue. The assessee-company is a partner in two firms, viz., East India Lamps and Components and Unipro Lamp Components. Both the firms were not initially granted registration in their respective assessments. On this basis, the assessee' s share in the two firms was computed accordingly from its income. Subsequently, the firms were granted registration which resulted in the inclusion of a different figure in respect of the shares of the firms in the assessee's income. The ITO, therefore, initiated rectification proceedings under Section 154 read with Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to which the assessee's representative objected to as under : The above mentioned firms were assessed as an unregistered firms and the assessee's shares of income were correctly included on that basis. It, therefore, cannot be stated that there is a mistake in the assessment capable of rectification under Section 154 of the Act. It is only for th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »