Kolkata Court April 1986 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.
Sahney Motor Corpn. and anr. Vs. Sm. Sova Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Cal59
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed under the provisions of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of the amount under 5 Hundies of the same date together with interest. The suit having been decreed, the defendants have filed this appeal.2. The execution of the Hundies has not been denied by the defendant No. 2 deposing as a sole witness for the defendants, the other defendant, i.e. the defendant No. 1, being the partnership firm of which defendant No. 2 and his son are the partners. The execution of the Hundies by the defendants having been proved by PW-1 and not having been denied by DW-1, the Hundies obviously attract all the presumptions available under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The relevant portion of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads thus :--'Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made - (a) that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and ...
Bimal Kumar Ghosh and anr. Vs. Saikat Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal208,90CWN968
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. A very short but important point arises in this civil revision which has been directed against the order No. 25, dt. 16-8-82 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta refusing to consider the present petitioners' prayer for dismissal of the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act being not maintainable with the observation that the question of dismissal of the suit can arise after framing of issues after filing of written statement by the defendant and after hearing the preliminary issue about maintainability of the suit at the instance of the defendant.2. Mr. Tarun Sankar Bose, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed before me a decision of our High Court reported in : AIR1966Cal259 , S.P.C. Engineering Co. v. Union of India in which P.C. Mullick, J. has observed that a proceeding under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is not a suit within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. He has, theref...
Ramaprasad Chatterjee Vs. Md. Jakir Kureshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1485
Shamsuddin Ahmed, J.1. C. R. No. 1388 of 1985 is directed against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore on 24-8-1985 in Criminal Motion No. 120 of 1985 setting aside the order passed by the learned C. J. M., Midnapore on 2nd May, 1985 giving the custody of Bus No. WGB 2929 to the petitioner in C. R. No. 119 of 1985. The other Revisional Application is directed for quashing the said proceeding pending before the learned C. J. M., Midnapore wherein he has taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420,I.P.C. and has directed to issue summons against the alleged accused therein. Accused persons are petitioners in this Revisional Application.2. Brief fact leading to this applications are as follows:-On 24th April, 1985 Ramaprasad Chatterjee filed a complaint alleging that he is the registered owner of the Bus in dispute and he intended to sell the same. At the intervention of accused No. 3 Wahid Kureshi the accused Zakir Kureshi and Sahid Kureshi ag...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bowater Corporation Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Cal)338,[1986]161ITR280(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Bowater Corporation Limited, the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1973-74. By the assessment, a further demand was raised by the Income-tax Officer on March 25, 1976, on which the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 25,39,575 on May 11, 1976.2. On appeal by the assessee against the said assessment, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on October 15, 1976, directed a refund of Rs. 23,85,295 to the assessee. The refund was withheld under Section 241 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The matter was finally disposed of by the Tribunal on an appeal of the Revenue on May 26, 1977. A refund of Rs. 22,01,545 has finally been directed to be made to the assessee.3. The Income-tax Officer awarded interest under Section 244(1A) while allowing the refund by his order passed under Section 244. Later, the Income-tax Officer sought to rectify the said order on the ground that excess interest has been granted to the assessee and the mistake was apparent on the face o...
Tapan Dass and anr. Vs. Sosti Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Cal390,90CWN1018
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. The respondent sued his other brothers for partition and accounts has obtained the preliminary decree impugned in this appeal. The main argument on behalf of the appellants against the preliminary decree is that the learned Judge ought to have held that the plaintiff has already received his share of the family ornaments before the suit and that the Vehicle in question was the exclusive property of the defendant No. 3 and, therefore, the learned Judge was wrong in decreeing partition of the ornaments and the Vehicle.2. As to the family ornaments, the case of the defendants is that by and under an amicable Agreement for partition between the parties about one and half year before the suit, it was agreed that the ornaments were to remain with the defendant No. 1 for the time being to be divided among them on the expiry of two months from the date of the agreement and that, to quote from paragraph 8 of the written statement, 'in pursuance of that Agreement the pl...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Stewarts and Lloyds of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Cal)206,[1987]165ITR416(Cal)
D.K. Sen, J. 1. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., the assessee, was a wholly owned subsidiary of Stewarts & Lloyds Ltd. of London (the U.K. company). In December, 1963, the assessee entered into a contract with the Indian Oil Corporation under which the work of erection of a pipeline at the Baroda Refinery of the Corporation was entrusted to the assessee. The contract was valued at Rs. 127.11 lakhs.2. The assessee commenced the work under the said contract in 1964. Initially, the work was expected to be completed within 15 months from commencement but in fact it took more than three and a half years to complete the same. In the meantime, on June 8, 1965, the assessee was converted into a public limited company under the Companies Act, 1956, but remained a subsidiary of the U.K. company which continued to hold 60 per cent. of the shares of the assessee.3. In executing the contract with the Indian Oil Corporation, the assessee incurred expenditure aggregating to Rs. 173.94 lakhs and accor...
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Cal)4,[1986]162ITR788(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (' the Act '), the following questions have been referred as questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court at the instance of the assessee :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the capital employed for working out the deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the depreciation in respect of the assets already allowed has to be considered ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the capital employed for the purpose of deduction under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the written down value of the assets has to be considered as per the income-tax records and not as per the assessee's books ' 2. The following questions have also been referred for the opinion of thiscourt as questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal at theinstance of the Revenue :' 3. Whether, on th...
West Bengal State Govt. Homoeopathic Officers' Association and Ors. Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)ILLJ175Cal
ORDERSudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 14, all ad hoc Homoeopathic Medical Officers in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, who started their service life in 1973 at a consolidated monthly emoflument of Rs. 250/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 425/- per month, have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court in quest of a scale of pay after having tried their luck abortively at departmental levels and then at the doors of the State Pay Commission.2. The unfortunate part of the story is that they failed to get themselves regularised through Public Service Commission and it is actually their 'ad hocism' which has so long stood as a barrier between their consolidated pay and a pay scale worth the name. They are performing the same duties and functions as their luckier regularised counterparts who are enjoying a pay scale but it is sheer 'ad hocism' which has made their cry for equal pay, a cry in the wilderness.3. As the last reso...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bengal Potteries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: [1989]175ITR421(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. On an application of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred by the Tribunal as a question of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the collaboration agreement dated December 3, 1960, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment to R. I. G. by way of royalty was revenue expenditure deductible in its entirety, in computing the assessee's business income ?'2. The controversy raised in the said case is covered by a decision of this court in the case of the same assessee. The said decision is CIT v. Bengal Potteries Ltd. : [1980]126ITR442(Cal) . By the said judgment, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for taking additional evidence on the issues raised and for disposal of the appeal under Section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Following the said decision, we remand this matter al...
Pradeep Chand Lall and anr. Vs. Grindlays Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal157,[1990]68CompCas272(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. This appeal by two of the defendants is directed against the order dated 2nd May, 1983 allowing the application made by the plaintiff-first respondent, Grindlays Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') for a final judgment under Chap. XIIIA of the Original Side Rules. The facts are in a narrow compass which are stated briefly hereafter.2. On or about 6th Nov. 1973, Cresswell Breweries Ltd. the second respondent (first defendant in the suit) made an application to the Bank for financial assistance by way of, inter alia, a Term Loan of Rs. 75,00,000/- for the purpose of financing the setting up of a brewery project at Chowk Bansberia in the District of Hooghly. The Bank by its letter dt. 21st Aug. 1974 informed the second respondent that the said application for a Term Loan of Rs. 75,00,000/- for the said project had been sanctioned by the Bank subject, inter alia, to the approval of the Reserve Bank of India to whom the application was being submitte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »