Kolkata Court August 1984 Judgments
State of West Bengal Vs. Narayan Patel and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal188
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore in L.R.A. Case No. 4 of 1979. The State of West Bengal is the appellant in the instant appeal and it appears that certain lands including tanks and structures were initially requisitioned under the West Bengal Act II of 1948 and were subsequently acquired. It appears that after the referring claimants respondents received a notice under Section 5(1) of the said Act, they preferred an objection bymaking claims for the compensation for the lands, structures etc. giving details of such claim on different items. It appears that the Land Acquisition Collector had valued the acquired solid land @ Rs. 633.50 per cottah and tank land @ Rs. 316.75 per cottah and on such basis, an award of compensation for structures, trees and other immovables was also made for total sum of Rs. 2,23,462.11 paise on all heads. The referring claimants being dissatisfied with the said awar...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Satyanarayan Rice Mill
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal391
B.C. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No. 528 of 1974 at the instance of the defendant, State of West Bengal.2. The facts of the case as appear from the plaint in short are as follows:-- The respondent, Satyanarayan Rice Mill instituted the said Money Suit for recovery of the price of the rice delivered on the basis of the purported order made under the West Bengal Rice Mills Levy Order, 1967 whereby he was directed to deliver 225 quintals of fine quality and 450 quintals of common quality rice as well as 224.80 quintals of common rice und 300 quintals of fine rice the price of which is claimed at the rate as per the order of this Hon'ble Court to be Rs. 37,578.25 P. It has been stated that the impugned Levy Order directing delivery of the aforesaid quantities of rice was served on the plaintiff some time in April, 1967 and the procurement price fixed under the West Bengal Rice Mills Levy Order, 1967 was much below the average price...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Vishnu Agencies (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal150
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Vishnu Agencies (Private) Ltd. instituted the above suit being Suit No. 2166 of 1963 in this Court against the Union of India claiming, inter alia, delivery of certain Government Promissory notes of the value of Rs. 25,000/-; alternatively, a decree for Rs. 25,000/-, a decree for further Rs. 4,020/-, a decree for the amount of interest on the said Government promissory notes after 31 st July 1953. further interest and costs.2. The Union of India entered appearance in the suit and filed its written statement.3. The suit appeared in the peremptory list and on the 4th Oct. 1983 a decree was passed in the suit ex parte against the Union of India.4. On or about the 3rd April 1984 the Union of India made an application before the trial Court, inter alia, for the following orders :(a) The said ex parte decree passed be set aside or recalled. (b) An injunction restraining the plaintiff from taking any step for drawing up and completing the said decree. (c) The suit be dir...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Hind Tea Company (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC97(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. The State of West Bengal and other authorities under them and belonging to the Commercial Tax Department, who were respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in Civil Rule No. 2941(W) of 1970, have impeached in this appeal a determination made on 22nd April, 1975, in the said civil rule.2. Respondent No. 1, in this appeal who was petitioner in the said rule, moved and obtained the same on 8th May, 1970, challenging the assessment order and demand notice for the year ending 31st December, 1966. The particulars of the said assessment order and the concerned demand notice would be disclosed hereafter. The petitioners in the rule, viz., M/s. Hind Tea Company Limited, who as mentioned hereinbefore, are respondent No. 1 would hereinafter referred to as the said company.3. It was claimed that the said company was a public limited one and their original name was 'Hindoo Tea Company Limited' and subsequently such name was changed to the name of the said company as mentioned hereinbefore, in July, 1...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal76
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application under Section 33, 5 and 12 of the Arbitration Act for declaration that there is no arbitration agreement in existence between the parties, the reference made by the respondent No. 1 is invalid and for restraining the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, the joint arbitrators from proceeding with the arbitration.2. On 4th December 1973, the petitioner had issued a Miscellaneous Accident Policy bearing No. 533490425 in favour of the respondent No. 2 herein covering the risk of burglary and house breaking in respect of stock-in-trade stored in the godown No. 57, Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta for a period of 12 months from 1-12-73 and 1-12-74. The sum insured was Rs. 1,40,000/-. Clause 12 of the said policy contained an arbitration agreement as follows : --'If any dispute shall arise as to whether the company is liable under this policy or as to the amount of its liability the matter shall, if required by the company be referred to the decision of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ruby International (India) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: 1985(4)ECC252
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. Dilip Kumar Neotia, the writ petitioner carries on business under the name and style of Ruby International (India) at No, 32, Baranasi Ghose Street, Calcutta. One M/s. Everest Goats Skin and Company obtained an additional Import Licence bearing No. P/W/2902098/C dated 18th December, 1981. The said licence was valid for items admissible under paragraph 186 of Import Policy for 1981-82 and sub-paragraphs thereof subject to the conditions stipulated in different sub-paragraphs of paragraph 18 of 1981-82 policy. The licence originally issued had expired on 18th December, 1982. The licence was revalidated on 25th July, 1983 for six months subject to the condition that the licence would be valid for imports of item as are not permissible for import against additional licence under the Import Policy for 1983-84 (that is the period during which revalidation is being granted). The Everest Goats Skin issued a letter of authority in favour of the petitioner on 10th Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Estate of B.P. Kayan Trust (Through B.P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Cal)366,[1985]155ITR60(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. R.P. Kayan of 103 Park Street, Calcutta, installed two deities known as Radha Krishna Jew and Ladoo Gopal and erected a temple at Villa Rose being premises No. 156, Victoria Road, Baranagore. By a deed of settlement dated February 14, 1951, the settlor dedicated certain properties unto the said deities. He constituted himself as the first trustee/shebait with a right of residence for himself and hisfamily. It was provided in the deed that the net income of the properties after defraying the expenses mentioned in Clauses 2(a) and 2(b) would be spent in a certain manner. Clause 3 of the trust deed was to the effect that:'3. Any balance remaining after defraying or disbursing the above expenses to be applied as follows : Firstly, for the establishment and maintenance of a Dharamshala, for providing food and other amenities to the pilgrims, adequate staff for such purposes. Secondly, for the establishment of a Sanskrit chatuspati, for paying the salaries of the nece...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janata Medical Stores
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Cal)340,[1985]155ITR377(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of an order of the ITO under Section 184 of the I.T. Act, 1961, refusing to register Janata Medical Stores, the assessee, as a firm under Section 185 of the said Act for the assessment year 1969-70, the corresponding previous year being that ending on October 21, 1968. On consideration of the provisions of the deed of partnership dated January 25, 1968, under which the firm was constituted, the ITO came to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine.2. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC noted that all the partners of the assessee were shown as partners in the bank. They were also authorised to operate the account of the partnership. He also took into account that the partnership was registered with the Registrar of Firms and the Registrar of Assurances and came to the conclusion that the partnership was genuine and directed the ITO to grant registration.3. On a further appeal by the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on a conside...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Grand Smithy Works
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD370(Kol.)
1. The only common ground raised in these nine departmental appeals is that the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in allowing depreciation and deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in the reopened assessments, which were not claimed in the original assessments.2. The assessee is a registered firm. The assessments for the years under appeal were originally completed. Subsequently, the assessee, by its letter dated 7-2-1982, informed the IAC that there had been suppression of profit of about Rs. 45 lakhs over a period covering the assessment years 1967-68 to 1978-79. On the basis of the said letter, the IAC initiated proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act and issued notices under Section 148 of the Act, in response to which the assessee filed returns. In the course of the reassessment proceedings, the assessee had filed statement showing the income escaped. The assessee, however, claimed depreciation and deduction under Section 35B, in the reassessment...
Tag this Judgment!Jugolinija Rajia Jugoslavija and anr. Vs. Fab Leathers Limited and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal193,89CWN9
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This revisional application raises a short point as to whether the plaintiff's suit is prima facie barred by law as against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 or not in view of Clause (vi) of Article 3 of the Rules adopted by the International Conference on Maritime Law commonly known as Hague Rules. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the petitioners before us. The order impugned is one dated September, 30, 1983, passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Money Suit No. 186 of 1981. By the order impugned, the learned Judge has rejected an application filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint so far as they are concerned on the ground that it is so barred under the said clause. The defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the laws of Yugoslavia and defendant No. 2 is a local agent of defendant No. 1.2. Since the disputed issue has to be decided only on the plaint it would be necessary to set ou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »