Kolkata Court August 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.
Sudhir Kumar Bose Vs. Gobardhandas Jairambhai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Cal352
ORDERB.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. These three revisional applications under Section 115 C. P. Code have been heard analogously as contested applications.2. All the three applications aredirected against order Dt. April 29, 1983passed in T. S. Nos. 732, 730 and 727 of1974 respectively -- all pending in the 9thBench of City Civil Court at Calcutta. Bythe orders impugned the learned Judge hasrejected independent applications foramendment of the plaints.3. In order to appreciate the point involved a brief narration of facts would be helpful and there is no dispute as to the facts leading to the filing of the applications for amendment. They are : --The Opp. Parties as plaintiffs filed six suits for eviction against six tenants -- the three petitioners herein being three of them. The suits were on the ground of default. All the suits were dismissed by the trial court in May 1961. The suits were heard analogously, The landlord preferred as many appeals to the court and the appeals were allowed on ...
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr. Vs. Shri Dipak Dhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC131(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. The main point to be decided in this case is whether sales tax could be levied on lottery tickets and if they are goods within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter be referred to as the said Act), which has denned 'goods' to include all kinds of movable property other than actionable claims, stocks, shares or securities. Initially sales tax was neither levied nor imposed on lottery tickets. But after the coming into force of' the Constitution (46th Amendment) Act, the State Legislature has promulgated the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter be referred to as the said 1984 Amendment), and thereby, they have sought to levy 20 per centum of such part of the taxable turnover of a dealer as represents the sale of lottery tickets.2. On such an application was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India amongst others by the respondent Shri Dipak Dhar, stating himself to be the proprietor o...
Gopal Das Gujarati Vs. Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1984
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas920(Cal)
Asha Mukal Pal, J.1. This is an application by one Gopal Das Gujarati for an order of injunction restraining the defendants, namely, the Titagarh Paper Mills Co Ltd., Kanak Ghosh, working for gain at 95, Park Street, Calcutta, and others including Sri Betrabet, Deputy General Manager, Development and Planning, and N. I. Gangaram, Deputy General Manager, working for gain at the Industrial Development Bank of India along with others from proceeding with or acting in terms of the notice dated August 24, 1983, calling the annual general meeting on September 30, 1983, and also from holding the annnal general meeting on the said date. Appointment of administrator and/or special officer has also been sought for over the Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd., defendant No. 1.2. The petitioner's case is that at all material times, he was and still is a shareholder of the Titagarh Paper Mills and he is holding 32,179 fully paid-up ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each in the capital of the Titagarh Paper Mills...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indo American Electricals Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1984
Reported in: [1985]155ITR63(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax applied to the Tribunal for referring three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal referred only the following question to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no penalty under Section 140A(3) was leviable ?'2. An order of penalty was passed by the ITO on the ground that the assessee did not pay tax on the basis of the returned income within the due date, A sum of Rs. 25,000 was charged as penalty under Section 140A(3) of the I.T, Act. The AAC in appeal upheld the order of the ITO. The Tribunal, however, held that the imposition of penalty for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion which has to be exercised judicially. For this proposition, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. : [1972]83ITR26(SC) , and following that judgment, the Tribun...
income-tax Officer Vs. Universal Electric Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: (1985)11ITD577(Kol.)
1. These two appeals by the revenue against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), involving common contentions, are disposed of by this combined order for the sake of convenience.2. The first common ground pertains to the assessee's claim for deduction in respect of licence fee disallowed by the ITO. By an agreement dated 12-3-1977, the assessee took over the factory of Everlite (P.) Ltd. with effect from 1-12-1976 on leave and licence basis in consideration of an annual fee of Rs. 8,25,000 for the purpose of manufacturing copper enameled wire and aluminum wire. The factory comprised of all lands, buildings, structures, god owns, out-houses, fixtures, plant and machinery and other articles belonging to Everlite (P.) Ltd., together with all rights and benefits of quotas, licences, grants, privileges, agreements, contracts, orders, permits and applications that were and might, during the term of the licence, come in existence or be available and/or obtained for in connection with th...
Deepchand Agarwalla and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ281
ORDERUmesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. This writ petition is for quashing of an investigation commenced under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act on the basis of a First Information Report dt. 4th July, 1983 lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Enforcement Directorate with the Officer-in-Charge, Burrabazar P.S. being P.S. Case No. 47 dt. 4th July, 1983 under Section 7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.2. It is a well settled principle of law that investigation of an offence is the field, exclusively reserved for the Executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government The power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the Judiciary. (See in this connection the decision of Supreme Court reported in : 1980CriLJ98 ; State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna).3. Mr. Roy Chowdhury appearing for the petitioner, however, strongly relied on the later decision of the Supreme Court i...
Raj Kumar Singhania Vs. Benoy Kumar Mazumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal328
ORDERMonjula Bose, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint wherein the plaintiff claimed a decree inter alia for specific performance of the agreement dt. Aug. 27, 1979 being Annexures B and C to the plaint and/or for a decree directing the defendant No. 1 and/or defendants and/or such of them as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to execute a proper and sufficient conveyance in respect of the suit premises, the particulars whereof are set out in Schedule D to the plaint; a decree for Rs. 10,000/- in addition to the decree for specific performance; in the alternative a decree for Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation.2. The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a Joint Written Statement, inter alia, alleging that a sum of Rs. 34,500A payable to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by the defendant No. 1 under an agreement, not being paid, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any relief in the suit, relying on the Deed of Partition between the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, which ...
Trustees for Improvement of Calcutta Vs. Bahadur Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Cal412,89CWN16
ORDERB.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This revisional aplication at the instance of the defendant No. 2 of Title Suit No. 2374 of 1982 now pending in the 12th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta is directed against an order datedJuly 15, 1983. By the said order the learned Judge disposed of an application under Order 14, Rule 2, C. P. Code filed by the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 (the petitioner herein) alleged that the court had no territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit. The learned Court below found in favour of the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 hence the present revisional application.2. In order to appreciate the points involved in this revisional application it would be eminently reasonable to bear in mind certain facts and the reliefs claimed in the suit in the context of the allegations made in the plaint as also in the context of the proceedings that preceded the presentation of the plaint. The suit relates to and arises out of art acquisition procee...
S.S. Miranda Ltd. Vs. Shyam Bahadur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1984
Reported in: [1985]154ITR849(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This appeal is treated as on day's list at the instance of the parties and the application and the appeal are disposed of by the following order. 2. The appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 31,023.54 with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from November 22, 1978, up to March 5, 1981, by a decree dated March 5, 1981, and thereafter interest on the said sum at 6% per annum until realisation and also to pay to the plaintiff the cost of the suit including the reserved cost. There was a direction for the taxation of the cost. 3. It appears that the appellant chose to pay amount after deduction of income-tax at source. The amount of tax deducted at source was paid in Bombay to the credit of the respondent. 4. The case of the respondent is that the respondent was entitled to get payment under the decree and there was no scope for deduction of income-tax from the amount that was directed to be paid. Reliance was placed for this proposition on the case of...
Vijay Shroff and anr. Vs. Sudhir Asher and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Cal30,89CWN407
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J. 1. In this Originating Summons the Plaintiffs, i.e. the executors under the will and testament dt. 13th Sept. 1971 executed by Dharam Singh Suraiya had raised various questions including for determination of the question whether the bequest of shares in Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the defendants was a specific legacy or a general or demonstrative legacy in the facts and circumstances of the case and for other consequential reliefs. In the event this Court held that the bequest of shares in Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd. made under the will of the testator was a demonstrative legacy in that event whether such shares and/or accretions thereto were liable to meet the general cost of administration by the executors at the first instance. 2. Vijay Shroff, Paresh Rajdar and Vijay Merchant were appointed the executors under the will of the testator Dharam Singh Suraiya who died on 4th July, 1972 after making and publishing his last will and testament dt. 13th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »