Kolkata Court August 1985 Judgments
Rameswar Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal19,90CWN16
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against the order No. 18 dated March 25, 1985 of the Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Krishnagar, Nadia, whereby the learned Assistant District Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for withdrawal of the application for withdrawal of the suit.2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to invitation of tenders issued by the State Government for the completion of unfinished work in the Sugar-cane Research Station Building at Bamandanga, P. S. Nakashipara and the Sub-Divisional Health Centre at Fakirdanga, under P. S. Nabadwip both in the district of Nadia, the petitioner submitted his tender which was accepted by the authority concerned who issued the necessary' work order for the said job. The petitioner took up the said job and completed the same within the stipulated time. The t...
Tag this Judgment!Durgapada Jana Vs. Nemai Charan Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal23,1985(2)CHN357,90CWN95
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the 1st Court of the Additional District Judge, Midnapore, affirming those of the 2nd Court of the Assistant District Judge, Midnapore, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff, Sm. Dukhi Dasi, praying for a declaration of her title to the suit property and recovery of possession thereof after setting aside the registered deed of gift dated April 26, 1949 executed by her in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. A further prayer was made by the plaintiff for a declaration that the defendants Nos. 3 to 9 had not acquired any title to the suit property by virtue of their purchase of the same from the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.3. The original plaintiff Sm. Dukhi Dasi, since deceased, was the second wife of one Gaya Jana. Gaya Jana married one Rashmoni and, after her death, he married Dukhi Dasi. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Gaya Jana by his first wi...
Tag this Judgment!Santimoy Bhattacharyya and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Pada Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1985
Reported in: 1986(1)CHN299,90CWN69,[1986]159ITR637(Cal)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the order dated May 23, 1984, of the Tenth Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, setting aside the Order No. 22 dated June 6, 1983, of the First Court of Munsif at Alipore, rejecting the plaint filed by the respondent No. 1 registered as Title Suit No. 484 of 1981 and 218 of 1983. By the impugned order, the lower appellate court sent the case back on remand to the learned munsif for trial on merits.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for a declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs on the footing, inter alia, that he is the real owner of the disputed property which stands benami in the name of his nephew, Kali Kinkar Mitra, defendant No. 2. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 281A provides as follows:'281A. (I) No suit to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United India Fire and General Insurance ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1985
Reported in: [1986]161ITR295(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. On an application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions, as questions of law arising out of its order, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 26,426 paid by the assessee to the South British Group of Companies under the terms of treaty agreement dated June 8, 1965, was an admissible deduction from the assessee's income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the gross amount of dividend received by it without any reduction of the proportionate expenses of the business ?' 2. Question No. 2 is covered by a series of decisions of this court including that in Income-tax Reference No. 347 of 1980 intituled Calcutta Discount & Co. Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1847
N.G. Chaudhuri, J. 1. Ranjit Chatterjee, the appellant before us, feels aggrieved with his conviction under Section 27(a)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Section 18(c) of the said Act and imposition of the sentence of eight years R.I. and to a fine of rupees one thousand, in default, to further R. I. for one hundred days in Sessions Case No. 3(3) 80 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Alipore. In the said Sessions case there was another accused viz. M/s. Hindusthan Medical Services Private Limited. Ranjit Chatterjee has been imposed the sentence spoken of for himself and for the other accused for which he was found to be the owner and Proprietor. Both the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 27(b) of the aforesaid Act which was also framed at the commencement of the trial. Outline of the prosecution case may be given as follows.2. Mr. R. Chakraborty, an Inspector of Drugs, West Bengal received an information on 2-4-74 and inspected and searched the selling ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (Coal Sale ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Cal)38,[1987]163ITR40(Cal)
D.K. Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment of Karara Chand Thapar & Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd., the assessee, in the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the corresponding accounting periods being the years ending on June 30, 1968, and June 30, 1969.2. In the relevant assessment years, the assessee arranged sales of coal by different collieries to the purchasers who were also the consumers. The deliveries were made from the collieries to the consumers by rail, the freight charged to be paid by the purchasers.3. It is found as a fact that the purchasers who were the consignees were often charged extra freight where the quantity of coal received by them was less than that on which the freight was charged and paid.4. The excess freight charged, known in the trade as 'undercharges', used to be collected later from the sellers, the collieries, by the assessee as the agent of the purchasers, independent of any demand from the purchasers and the proceeds were credited in an acco...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Ganges Printing Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD212(Kol.)
1. Investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), on phototypesetter and air-conditioner installed by the assessee-company in the year under assessment (1980-81) was disallowed by the ITO on the ground that the same were installed in the office premises of the assessee. The ITO thereby relied upon Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 32A(1). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim holding that they were the assets of the industrial undertaking for the purpose of business of production. Secondly, the ITO negatived the claim of deduction of the assessee for Rs. 3,501 under Section 80VV of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim on the ground that it was below Rs. 5,000. The department is, therefore, in appeal on both the points which we proceed to dispose of in seriatim.2. Contention of the learned departmental representative is that the said phototypesetter and air-conditioner having been installed in the office premises were not elig...
Tag this Judgment!East Indian Produce Ltd. Vs. Naresh Acharya Bhaduri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas259(Cal)
R.N. Pyne, J. 1. The appellant, East Indian Produce Ltd., has made this application in an appeal filed by it against an ad interim order dated December 5, 1984, of C. K. Banerjee J. whereby his Lordship varied the ad interim order made ex parte on November 30, 1984, in an application made by the appellant in Suit No. 810 of 1984 (East Indian Produce Ltd. v. Naresh Acharya Bhaduri).2. The present case relates to and/or arises out of an agreement in writing dated September 11, 1984, made between respondents Nbs. 1 to 6 on the one part and the appellant on the other, relating to sale of shares of Ambari Tea Co. Ltd., respondent No. 7 herein.3. The appellant's case, as will appear from its plaint and the petition of application made before the trial court which is annexed to the petition of this application, may briefly be stated.4. According to the appellant, respondents Nos. 1 to 6 are and/or, as was represented by them, were the owners of 8, 100 shares of Ambari Tea Co. Ltd., respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Chandrakala Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Cal11
ORDERParitosh Kumar Mukherjee, J. 1. The petitioner moved this writ petition challenging an order dt. Aug. 30/31, 1978 passed by the Deputy Controller of Rationing, Initial Area II, by which the petitioner's petition for transferring the ownership of A. R. Shop No. 2987 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner's husband is the proprietor of an A. R. Shop is Muchipara Sub-Area. 2. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, Dr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order proceeded on the basis that the petitioner, being the wife is not entitled to get the A. R. shop transferred in her name, although in para 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by one Rathindra Kumar Basu on Aug. 2, 1979, it was stated that as the husband of the petitioner has a shop situated at Muchipara area, the petitioner is not entitled to get the appointment of the A. R. Shop transferred in her favour in terms of para 3(1) of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. 3. Thus, ...
Tag this Judgment!Gora Chand Porel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1985
Reported in: 90CWN265,[1986]160ITR158(Cal)
S.N. Sanyal, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, 8th Court, Alipore, dismissing theplaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore. 2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration that the proceedings and orders in relation to or arising out of Certificate Case No. 5168 Income-tax of 1956-57 pending before the Certificate Officer and Additional District Magistrate of 24-Parganas were illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction. 3. The plaintiff's case as made out in the plaint is that he is the karta of a Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer, District-VI, Calcutta, assessed the income-tax of the family for the year 1955-56 by a notice dated February 25, 1956, under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and directed payment of Rs. 15,595-7-0 as tax. Against the said assess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »