Kolkata Court June 1985 Judgments
Kumuda Sundari Properties (Private) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Namdang Tea Co. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal266,89CWN1147
Mookerjee, J. 1. M/s. Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. (the respondent No. 1 herein) claims to be a monthly tenant under Smt. Juthika Chowdhury, the appellant No. 2, in respect of the ground floor flat at premises No. 11/1, Sunny Park, P. Section Ballygunj, Calcutta. On May 2. 1985 the said company moved beforeHon'ble Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee a writ application, inter alia, praying that the purported plan sanctioned by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities in regard to the construction of a building at Premises No. 11/1, Sunny Park be cancelled and/or quashed and also for commanding the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities to withdraw or recall or rescind the said plan. Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. directed the petitioner to serve the copies of the writ petition on the respondents and in the meantime granted an ex parte interim order in terms of prayer (e) of the writ petition recording that he was passing the said ex parte interim order after taking into consideration...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhaniram Gupta and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1985
Reported in: [1986]158ITR531(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. M/s. Dhaniram Gupta & Co., the assessee, was incorporated as a partnership by an indenture dated November 20, 1956. The assessee was granted registration under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. On January 12, 1970, the Income-tax Officer issued three notices to the assessee under Section 186(1) of the Act stating that, he was of the opinion that during the said three assessment years, no genuine partnership firm as registered was in existence and called upon the assessee to make its representations in respect thereof on January 20, 1970.2. At the request of the assessee, the proceedings were adjourned till February 11, 1970, on which date the assessee asked the Income-tax Officer in writing for information about the material on which he had formed an opinion stating further that on receipt of such information further explanation would be submitted. It was contended that the assessee was a genuine firm in existence dur...
Tag this Judgment!Josef Meisaner Gmbr and Co. Vs. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal45
ORDERT.K. Basu, J.1. This is an application under the provisions of Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 for stay of the present suit, being Suit No. 93 of 1984 (Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd. v. Josef Meisaner GMBH & Co. and another). The facts relating to the present application may be briefly noted.2. The plaintiff Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as Kanoria) is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of heavy chemicals, Pentasrithrytol (hereinafter referred to as Penta) is a vital organic chemical and is used, inter alia, in the manufacture of detonator and explosive, surface coating resins, adhesives, printing inks etc. It can be of various grades.3. Kanoria was desirous of a setting up of a plant for manufacturing of Penta. With that objective in view Kanoria made an application to the Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Development, Government of India for the grant of industrial licence under the Industries (Develo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. A. Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Cal)418,[1986]159ITR124(Cal)
G.N. Ray, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1), Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred for the opinion of the court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income derived from the estate of the deceased husband of the assessee and credited to her personal bank account was not income distributed to, or applied to the benefit of, a specific legatee and it could not, therefore, be included in the personal assessments of the assessee under Section 168(4), Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, in the alternative, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the administration of the estate was not completed since the estate duty payable on the estate remained unpaid till the end of the relevant previous years and, therefore, the income from the estate was not includible in the personal assessments of the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Chandmall Chopra and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal111
ORDERBimal Chandra Basak, J.1. The two papers were moved before me. One is an application for condonation of delay in the submissions of the review application and another is stated to be an application for review of my judgment dated 17th May, 1985 (reported in : AIR1986Cal104 ), but which is actually a memorandum of review. By the said judgment I have dismissed the writ petition directed against Koran in limine. Thereafter these two 'applications' have been filed.2. So far as the condonation of delay is concerned, the time for making an application for review is 30 days. There is only one day's delay. It might be felt that only one day's delay may be condoned but the condonation of delay is not a matter of course. The petitioner must give proper explanation of even one day's delay. In this case in the petition the delay is sought to be explained by making the following averments : --'That the applicant got hurt in the palm of his right hand on 13th June, 1985, got a stitch and a band...
Tag this Judgment!Sankari Prasad Kundu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Cal53,90CWN185
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. Inor about July 1972 an agreement was entered into by and between the Coal Board and the appellant for protective work of excavation at the Lodna-Bagdigi Collieries. According to the respondent the appellant failed to execute the work in accordance with the terms of the said agreement D/- 21st July, 1977 in spite of repeated extensions of time. By reason of the alleged failure of the appellant to execute the work in terms of the said agreement, the said agreement D/- 21st July, 1977 was rescinded by the Coal Board on or about 30th July, 1977 and the security deposit furnished by the appellant was forfeited. The Coal Board under Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act, 1974 has now been vested in the Union of India.2. The disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, one R. P. Khosla was appointed as the sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in the said agreement entered into by and between the parties. The said a...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhamoy Baj and ors. Vs. Nemai Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal100,1985(2)CHN90,89CWN1057
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. 1. TheRevisional Application arises out of a proceeding under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 for preempting transfer of a fractional interest in a tank measuring 14.48 acres in Plot No. 397, mouza Plassey, P. S. Majia, Dist. Birbhum. Both in the Cadastral Survey Records and also in the Revisional Survey Settlement Records the status of the co-sharer tenants of the said tank which was described as Ram Dhanger Pukur was recorded as 'Raiyati Sthitiban. The principal point in the case was whether the said tank recorded in Plot No. 397 in mouza Plassey, P. S. Mejia, Dist. Birbhum was a non-agricultural or an agricultural holding and whether the pre-emption application under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act. 1949 was maintainable in law. 2. On 7th Nov. 1977 opposite parties 12 to 16 of the application under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 purported to transfer 6 annas 10 gond...
Tag this Judgment!J.N. Roy Chowdhury (Traders) P. Ltd. Vs. Jainti Enterprises
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1985
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas504(Cal),90CWN974
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by a learned single judge of this court on August 3, 1982. 2. The respondent, Messrs. Jainti Enterprises, describing itself as a registered firm, presented a petition for the winding up of the appellant company. The case as made out by the respondent in its petition for winding up is that by an agreement dated November 28, 1975, the appellant agreed to sell dolomite to the respondent for a period of five years with an option for renewal upon the terms and conditions contained therein. Pursuant to the said agreement, the respondent had been buying from the appellant against advance payment from 1975 to 1977. After adjustment of accounts it was found, according to the respondent, that the appellant was indebted to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 24,062-42. It is alleged by the respondent that the statement of account between the parties was settled and confirmed wherefrom a sum of Rs. 24,062.42 remained du...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1985
Reported in: [1985]156ITR360(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines Ltd. the assessee, an American shipping company, was assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1972-73, the corresponding accounting year ending on December 31, 1971. In its return, the assessee disclosed a net loss. It also claimed a deduction of $ 1,00,53,970 under Section 32(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the deficiency arising from sale of two vessels belonging to the assessee sold during the accounting year at a price less than their written down value in the books. The assessee claimed that the same should be taken into account in computing its business loss and should be carried forward as a business loss under Section 72 of the Act.2. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee. He held that under the Act, the allowance provided in Section 32(1)(iii) was not meant to be carried forward as it had been excluded from Section 32(2). He held further that on an asset which ceases to exist in an accounting year, the allowance ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bilaspur Spinning Mills Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR237(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. Bilaspur Spinning Mills & Industries Ltd. was assessed to income-tax in the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the relevant accounting years ending on September 30 of the calendar years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 respectively. In its returns, the assessee claimed under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deduction of 6% of the capital employed by the assessee in its undertaking from its profits and gains in the computation of its total income. In each of the said assessment years, there were no profits and gains. The assessee claimed further that the said 6% of its capital employed should be carried forward as deficiency under the said section for being set off against its profits and gains of the subsequent assessment years.2. Part of the capital of the assessee consisted of machinery purchased from a manufacturer in Japan on deferred payment basis. The assessee claimed that the quantum of the unpaid purchase price of the said machinery ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »