Kolkata Court September 1985 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. R.P. Agarwalla and Brothers ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal403
M.N. Roy, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 25th April 1981, passed in Title Suit No. 33 of 1980, by Shri D.K. Panda, learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas. 2. By such judgment and decree, the plaintiff/Respondent's suit for ejectment andfor damages in respect of the property as described hereafter, was decreed and consequently, the declarations as asked for were granted. 3. M/s. R. P. Agarwalla & Brothers (Pvt) Ltd. Plaintiffs in the suit, stated that a Company by the name of Property Development Trust (P) Ltd., who incidentally were their predecessor-in-interest, acquired more or less 2 Bighas 15 Cottahs 14 Chittacks and 62 Square feet of land, appertaining to premises No. 5, Lansdown Road, which is presently known as 5B, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta-20 and thereafter, the said predecessor-in-interest (hereinafter referred to as the said Trust), built a multistoried building, which is known as 'Lansdown Court' (hereinafter referred to...
RobIn Bapari and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ381
Gobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J.1. After their conviction under Section 395 I.P.C. and the imposition of the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, a further rigorous imprisonment of three months each, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of January, 1983 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipore Robin Bapari and Sambhu Biswas have jointly filed the present appeal from jail. Even at the time of the hearing of the appeal they did not or could not engage any Advocate to argue their appeal. We do not find any Advocate willing to argue the appeal on their behalf here also. Mrs. Anima Chakraborty, learned Advocate undertakes to argue the appeal of the appellants as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Chaitanya Chandra Mukherji, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the State-Respondent. The prosecution case stood as follows.2. On 22-1-82 at about midday about seven youngmen all armed with revolvers and other deadly weapons raided the Allahabad Bank, Pai...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Manjusree Biswas
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD574(Kol.)
1. Wealth consisting of house properties at Middleton Row and Camac Street has been assessed to wealth-tax by the WTO for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1976-77 in the hands of Smt. Manjusree Biswas, legal representative to the trustees to the estate of late Jitendra Nath Mookerjee. Validity of these assessment orders were challenged in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by consolidated order dated 21-9-1983 for all these seven years cancelled the assessments.The department is, therefore, in appeal for all these seven years which we propose to dispose of by this common order.2. For proper appreciation of the controversy these relevant facts need notice. Late J.N. Mookerjee left a will dated 14-2-1938. He died on 3-10-1939. The legatees of the said will were his widow Smt. Prova Mookerjee, son Robindra Nath Mookerjee, daughter Smt. Shephali Chatterjee and pre-deceased daughter Maduri's son Shri Amarendra Nath.Smt. Prova Mookerjee, Shri Robindra Nath Mookerjee and Shri Birend...
Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Himansu Sekhar Basu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Cal58
1. The suit was instituted by the Corporation of Calcutta in 1967 against the several defendants. The claim of the plaintiff Corporation is on account of arrears of consolidated rates due and payable in respect of premises No. 507, Rabindra Sarani, formerly known as 260, Chitpur Road, Calcutta. According to the plaintiff the ownership of the said premises WHS vested in several owners thereof in several divided and separated shares and under Section 133(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 and the thenvaluation of the said premises was apportioned amongst the several share-holders or co-owners thereof according to their respective shares without assigning any separate number thereto and consolidated rate bills were made out and issued in apportioned shares accordingly.2. In this suit the plaintiff has claimed apportioned share of consolidated rate bills of the Corporation of Calcutta which remained unpaid in respect of Sm. Satyabala Ghosh and others, Shebaits of Sree Sree Iswar Gokul ...
Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1985
Reported in: (1986)15ITD508(Kol.)
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 11-11-1983 of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the assessment year 1978-79.2. By this order, the Commissioner has set aside the entire assessment and directed the assessing officer to make a fresh assessment after giving proper opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The assessing officer in this case was the IAC who had made the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act on 19-11-1981.3. Shri P.T. Sanyal, the learned representative for the assessee, took us through the first of the 10 grounds taken in this appeal which reads as below ; That the order under Section 263 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, in respect of the assessment order dated 19-11-1981 is bad and without jurisdiction since the said assessment order was passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and not by an Income-tax Officer.Shri P.T. Sanyal urged before us tha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Davidson of India (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Cal)238,[1986]161ITR407(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. Davidson of India (P.) Ltd., Calcutta (which has since been amalgamated with Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd.), the assessee, was assessed to income-tax in the assessment year 1967-68, the corresponding accounting year ending on September 30, 1966.2. At the material time, the assessee carried on the business, inter alia, of manufacture of tea garden machinery, a priority industry within the meaning of Section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On export of machinery manufactured by it, the assessee became entitled to and obtained import entitlements which were sold during the relevant assessment year. The assessee contended that the profit arising from the sale of the import entitlements was also part of the profit derived from the priority industry, namely, manufacture of tea garden machinery carried on by it, and deduction provided under Section 80E should be allowed on such profit. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer who included the ...
Sujit Pal Vs. Prabir Kumar Sun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Cal220,90CWN342
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. This is an application for an interim stay of operation of the order No. 18 dt. July 4, 1985 of the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, passed in Title Suit No. 887 of 1985. By the said order, the learned Judge has allowed the application of the plaintiff-opposite party for a temporary mandatory injunction directing the defendant-petitioner to forthwith open the padlock put on the main entrance door of the suit premises and restore the possession thereof to the plaintiff-opposite party. The Officer-in-charge of the Shyampukur Police Station has also been directed by the learned Judge to take steps for enforcing the said order and to see that no breach of peace takes place in giving effect to the order. 2. The plaintiff-opposite party has instituted the said suit, inter alia, praying for a declaration of his tenancy right in respect of a room of premises No. 2, Shibdas Bhaduri Street, Calcutta-4 and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants...
Ahmed Khan and Sons and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1985
Reported in: [1987]63STC104(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm of which the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are partners. The partnership business is carried on under the name and style of M/s. Ahmed Khan and Sons at No. 22, Zakaria Street, Calcutta. The business of the firm is mainly export of hookah tobacco paste to Middle East countries. The petitioners for the purpose of their export business purchase substantial quantities of containers, wooden boxes, polythene papers and other packing materials in which the paste is packed for export.2. There is no dispute that tobacco for hookah exported by the petitioners is exempt from sales tax by virtue of Section 6(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter described as the Act), as it comes within item 18 of Schedule I to the said Act. There is also no dispute that the petitioner is a 'dealer' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act as it carries on business of selling goods in West Bengal or of purchasing goods in West Bengal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›