Kolkata Court October 1985 Judgments
Hem Chandra Gupta Vs. Om Prokash Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Cal69
R.N. Pyne, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J. dt. 31st August 1983. Shorn of unnecessary details the relevant facts of the instant case are as follows :The respondent Om Prakash Gupta as plaintiff filed Suit No. 728 of 1980 (Om Prakash Gupta v. Hem Chandra Gupta) against the appellant Hem Chandra Gupta for a declaration that the appellant and the respondent were entitled equal one half share in the premises No. 37A, Tarachand Dutt Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the said premises'); partition of the said premises by metes and bounds in accordance with the draft deed or plan as approved by the parties and/ or in such manner as to this Court might deem fit and proper and for other consequential reliefs.2. The respondent's case as made out in his plaint was that at all material times the parties to the suit were co-partners having equal shares in the firm of 'Hem Chandra Om Prokash' carrying on business at No. 37A Tarachan...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Fazlu Rahaman Khatri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-1985
Reported in: 1988(38)ELT32(Cal)
1. The opposite party herein was arrested by the Customs officials under Section 104 of the Customs Act and was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on July 25, 1985. The learned Magistrate did not grant bail to the opposite party and aggrieved thereby he preferred an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore. When the application was taken up for hearing on July 29,1985 the Public Prosecutor, 24 Parganas did not oppose the prayer for bail and the learned Judge, after hearing the learned Advocate for the accused - opposite party, granted him bail. Aggrieved thereby, the Assistant Collector of Customs, preferred this application praying for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused-opposite party.2. While we are in agreement with the learned advocate for the petitioner that the learned Judge should not have granted bail to the accused opposite-party without hearing the Customs Authorities, we do not wish to cancel the bail granted to the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and ors. Vs. Mukundadas Nundy and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: [1987]168ITR12(Cal)
Sen, J.1. On the death of Kristodas Nundy on April 21, 1958, Mukundadas Nundy, Hrishikesh Nundy and Patitpaban Nundy, the joint executors nominated by the deceased by his last will and testament dated February 26, 1958, the accountable persons under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the respondents herein, filed an account of the estate of the deceased before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, 'A' Ward, Estate Duty-cum-Income-tax Circle, Calcutta.2. By an order dated February 27, 1959, duty on the said estate was assessed at Rs. 76,341.20 and it was further recorded as follows :'The court fees that will be paid for taking out the probate will be allowed under Section 62 of the Act after evidence of its payment is produced.'3. Pursuant thereto a demand was raised and a notice dated March 9, 1959, was served on the respondents.4. It is on record that the respondents on and from March 31, 1959, paid diverse amounts, from time to time, and every month towards the estate duty, which were...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vijoy Kumar Vineet Kumar.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-1985
Reported in: (1987)66CTR(Cal)233
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. - In this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1973-74 the following question of law has been referred to this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of s. 40A (7) (a) of the IT Act, 1961 did not apply to a case where no provision on account of accrued liability for payment of gratuity to the workmen had been made in the accounts of the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1973-74 ?'2. The assessees case is that prohibition contained in s. 40A(7) must be confined to a case where the assessee has actually set apart a sum by way of provision for the purpose of payment of gratuity. Where no provision was made for payment of gratuity, the bar contained in s. 40A (7) (a) will not apply and there is no legal impediment in allowing the claim of the assessee. This contention was rejected by this Court in the case of the CIT v. New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmeda...
Tag this Judgment!Britania Industries Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal296
ORDERC.K. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint taken out by the plaintiff. The suit was filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant No. 1 Punjab National Bank entered appearance to the suit and thereupon the plaintiff took out a summons for judgment against the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 opposed the same -- applying on the said summons taken out by the plaintiff for judgment disclosing a defence and praying for leave to defend. Leave to defend was granted by this Court to the defendant No. 1.2. Mr. Ginwalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after leave to defend has been granted to the defendant No. 1 the suit is no more a suit under Order XXXVII but it has become an ordinary contested suit and he referred to Rule 7 of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was urged by Mr. Ginwalla that if the suit remained a suit under Order XXXVII the amendments prayed for could not be pleaded in the plaint as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›