Kolkata Court April 1985 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.
Gopal Basak and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal182,89CWN737
ORDERBhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. 1. This instant writ petition was moved by 45 writ petitioners who earn their livelihood as hawkers, for restraining the Respondents from evicting the petitioners from the footpath and or the roads of the Howrah Municipal area. The case of the petitioners in short is that the petitioners are carrying on their livelihood as hawkers after obtaining Municipal licence for exercising the trade of a Hawker as provided under Sections 175 and 176 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1983 as extended to the Municipality of Howrah and that the petitioners were carrying on such business occupying the place between the Howrah Station wall and the footpath in the Howrah Station area. The petitioners father state that the petitioners came to know from a news item published in the Daily Newspaper 'Jugantar' is its issue dated 10th February, 1985 that the hawkers of the Howrah Municipal area should be evicted from the footpath and/or the roads. 2. The learned advocate appe...
Sriman Prabahan Mitra Vs. Sm. Madhuri Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Cal368
1. These two appeals are at the instance of Sriman Prabahan Mitra, Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 96 of 1982 and Defendant No. 4 in Title Suit No. 97 of 1982 and they are directed against the common judgment made on Aug. 31, 1982 by Sri B. K. Panda, Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas, dismissing the Title Suit No. 96 of 1982 and decreeing the Title Suit No. 97 of 1982, directing the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 of Title Suit No. 97 of 1982 to execute and convey the suit property mentioned in the plaint schedule in favour of the Respondents within 2 (two) months from the date of the judgment after receiving the balance consideration money, in default the Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 97 of 1982 may apply to the Court for execution and registration of the conveyance of the property through court.2. The facts of the case, as appeared from the pleadings of the said suit are as follows : --3. Prabhat Kumar Mitra, since deceased, the grandfather of minor Prabahan Mitra executed his last...
Manindra Kumar Bose Vs. Biswanath Churiwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Cal422,89CWN1007
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The above partition and administration suit was instituted on the 24th Dec., 1974 by Biswanath Churiwalla, Pawan Kumar Churiwalla and Sonjoy Kumar Churiwalla against Chiranjilal Churiwalla. Sm. Bhagwati Churiwalta, Hem Chand Churiwalla, Bijay Kumar Churiwalla impleaded respectively as the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 claiming, inter alia, declaration of shares of the parties, partition by metes and bounds and allotment of the divided shares in two joint properties, namely, premises No. 1, Gobinda Dhar Lane, Calcutta and 12, Brojo Dulal Street, Calcutta.2. The defendants filed their written statement in the suit.3. On 13th May, 1981, on terms of settlement filed by the parties in Court, a preliminary decree was passed in the suit directing the joint properties to be divided into 15 equal shares. It was declared that the plaintiffs would jointly be entitled to l/5th and the defendants would be entitled to the balance 4/5th. Manindra Kumar Rose, Barrister-at Law, was app...
Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Cal)37,[1985]156ITR223(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Hindustan Motors Ltd., Calcutta, the assessee, in the assessment year 1974-75, the relevant previous year ending on March 31, 1974.2. One M.S. Rao, an employee of the assessee, retired from service on September 1, 1973. From April 1, 1973, till August 31, 1973, the employee received from the assessee his salary aggregating to Rs. 22,000. On his retirement, he received from the assessee a further Rs. 61,600 on account of his retirement benefits including gratuity.3. The ITO held that under Section 40A(5)(c)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the permissible limit up to which an assessee could claim deduction for payment of amounts to its employees on account of salary or gratuity was Rs. 60,000. He disallowed the deduction of Rs. 22,000 paid to the employee as claimed by the assessee.4. On appeal by the assessee, the assessment was confirmed by the AAC who held that the employee concerned ceased to be an employee of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramkumar Agarwalla and Brothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: [1985]153ITR568(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act 1961, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment year 1963-64 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the return of income was filed after April 1, 1964, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, introduced with effect from April 1, 1964, cannot be invoked in this case for the assessment year 1963-64 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1)(c) was legally justified ?' 2. The assessee filed its return on October 17, 1966, for the assessment year 1963-64, showing an income of Rs. 2,33,085. The ITO found cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 1,65,294 in the assessee's account. One of such cash deposits was in the name of Amba Prosad Jyoti Pro...
In Re: Purbachal International and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: 1986(6)LC581(Calcutta),1985(21)ELT673(Cal)
ORDERBhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. This writ petition was moved with notice to the respondents against the refusal of the Customs Authorities to clear the imported white cement in contemplation of an adjudication proceeding. The said refusal to clear the said goods was endorsed in the body of the original bill of entry which is Annexure 'D' to the writ petition. In the instant case, the petitioner imported two consignments of white cement under O.G.L. and that the petitioner on arrival of the goods from Yugoslavia filed two separate bills of entry being No. 1665 and 1666 both dated 28, 1984 for home consumption for clearance of the said goods. The said bills of entry were duly processed by the Customs Authorities and assessed customs duty to the extent of Rs. l,83,000/-which was duly paid by the petitioner. Thereafter on the Bill of Entry, the Customs Authorities passed an order on January 1, 1985 and made the following endorsement :'Goods are allowed to warehoused Under Section 49 C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›