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.
Sm. Mangala Ghosh Vs. Rabindra Nath Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal307,90CWN696
ORDERNirendra Krishna Mitra, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule, instituted Title Suit No. 191 of 1979 in the 3rd Court of Munsif at Diamond Harbour, 24 Parganas against the opposite party inter alia, for specific performance of contract.2. The case of the petitioner as made out in the plaint inter alia, was that due to her financial stringency she was compelled to take loan from the opposite party. In order to secure the said loan she had to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the opposite party in respect of the suit property, there, however, was an agreement of reconveyance on repayment of the entire loan amount and both the said documents were executed and registered on the same day; that the petitioner was all along willing to perform her part of the contract but the opposite party declined to perform his part of the contract and as such the said suit was filed. The defendant/opposite party filed a written statement denying and disputing the case of the petitioner.3. That on the date f...
Indian Rayon Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC356,1986LC722(Calcutta),1986(25)ELT489(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts and proceedings leading up to this appeal are shortly as follows:2. The Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd., the appellant, carries on business under the name of style of Jayashree Textiles & Industries at Rishra in the district of Hooghly, West Bengal where the appellant owns and runs a factory. The appellant at the material time manufactured flax fabrics at the said factory.3. Flax fabrics were at the relevant time, included as an item in the Tariff Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, under Serial No. 22AA and was made subject to an ad valorem excise duty of 15%.4. By a Notification No. 63/73 dated the 1st March, 1973 all textile fabrics falling under the said Item No. 22AA of the Tariff Schedule including flax fabrics were wholly exempted from excise duty.5. On or about the 18th June, 1977 Item No. 22 AA in the Tariff Schedule of the Act was amended. Under the amended item flax fabrics, in which flax predominated in weight, 15% ad valorem duty...
Laxmi Traders and anr. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(25)ELT678(Cal)
Sudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a partnership concern and the petitioner No. 2 is one of its partners.2. As a transferee of the relevant import licence the petitioner no. 1 placed a firm order dated 23.6.1981 to a firm in Holland through the indenting agent for supply of secondary grade stainless steel sheets valued at US Dollars 1600 per metric tonne. The description of the goods in the invoice was, however, given as 'stainless steel sheets 0.5 mm thick ...' without mentioning whether they were of prime or secondary grade.3. The goods having arrived at Calcutta port on or about October 24, 1981 the petitioners filed the necessary bills of entry dated November 7, 1981.4. However, on January 25, 1982 the Assistant Collector of Customs issued a notice to the petitioner no. 1 intimating that the correct value of the goods would be US Dollars 2200 per metric tonne c.i.f., Calcutta, being the value at which the MMTC imports prime quality stainless steel from different other ...
The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. S.K. Trading Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT139(HC)
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. This appeal arises out of a Judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on 19th June 1984 in application made by the defendant respondents herein. The facts of this case are very simple.2. There was an usual agreement between the appellant-plaintiff bank and the defendant-respondents whereby the plaintiff bank agreed to lend and advance to defendant No. 1 of which the defendants Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were the partners and wherein the defendant No. 7 subsequently became a partner, originally, the transaction was in the Cash Credit Account and the bill discount account at its branch at 25, Strand Road, Calcutta. Thereafter, with effect from 31st March 1978 by agreement between the parties the said Cash Credit account of the defendant No. 1 was transferred from the Strand Road Branch of the plaintiff to the plaintiff's branch at 31, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta and the agreements with the plaintiff continued.3. We are concerned with the Cash Credit account...
Pradip Traders Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC193,1988(17)LC772(Calcutta),1987(30)ELT703(Cal)
Padma Khastgir, J.1. The petitioners being aggrieved Dy non-release of Angel brand catheters by the Customs Authorities has moved the writ jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of necessary rule and interim order directing the respondent authorities forthwith to release the said goods.2. Mr. Gautam Mitter, the learned-lawyer on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the goods so imported by Pradip Traders are not subject to payment of any duty as those goods not only could be imported under Open General Licence but also the particular item, that is, the Angel brand catheters are not subject to payment of any duty. It was further the case of the petitioners that the bill of entry had been submitted by the petitioners with the Customs Authorities in the month of June, 1985. Till 27th March, 1985 apart from refusing to release the said goods, the Customs authorities had not taken any steps whatsoever nor initiated any proceedings against the petitioners for violation of any of the pr...
Everett (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC131,1986(24)ELT469(Cal)
Sudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. These three writ applications are taken up for analogous hearing since they involve a common question of law.2. All the three applications arose out of penalty proceedings under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1982 in respect of different consignments imported into India from foreign countries for ultimate exportation to Nepal.3. Due to alleged short landing of the cargo at the Calcutta port, separate penalty proceedings were started against the petitioners under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalties were imposed upon the petitioners overruling their objections including the common legal objection that Section 116 of the Customs Act has no application to Nepal cargo which is exempt from payment of Customs duty under a notification issued by the Government under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. It is against these orders imposing penalty that the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court and obtained the instant rules with interim...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›