Kolkata Court May 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.
Ashit Mukherjee Vs. Smt. Susmita Mukherjee (Nee Roy) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal153,90CWN1060
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. An order of maintenance pendente lite having been passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the wife against the husband, the latter has moved this Court in revision against the said order. In view of the nature, object and duration of a pendente lite maintenance order under Section 24, such an order should be sustained, wherever possible, and should be interfered with only when the law irresistibly warrants intervention.2. Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as it stood before the Amendment Act of 1976, there was a view that such an order was appealable thereunder, though a contrary view was also maintained. But Section 28, as it now stands after the 1976. Amendment, makes it abundantly clear that only final orders under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Act relating to permanent alimony, maintenance and custody of children etc. are, but no other order is, appealable. When the Legislature does not provide for an appeal against an o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agarpara Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Cal)218,[1989]175ITR445(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. In this application, the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-V, Calcutta, seeks a certificate that the case in which a judgment dated February 18, 1985, has been delivered by this court in CIT v. Agarpara Co. Ltd. : [1986]158ITR78(Cal) , is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.2. The following questions are stated to be substantial questions of law involved in the case :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 50,061 representing the amount of unpaid bonus written back in the accounts could be assessed under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the assessment year 1971-72 ? (ii) Whether, in view of the specific provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, such unclaimed bonus can be regarded as a liability beyond two years ?' 3. We are unable to accept the contentions of the Revenue. In fact, it has been held in the judgment that the liability to pay bonus by the assessee to its employees cannot continue indefini...
Banerjee and Banerjee Vs. Hindusthan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Cal374,[1990]68CompCas344(Cal)
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act for an Order restraining the respondent No. 1 from enforcing seven Bank guarantees for a total sum of Rs. 11,50,000/- furnished by the Bank of Madura Limited and the Indian Overseas Bank the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein, on behalf of the petitioner in favour of the respondent No. 1. These bank guarantees were given pursuant to the express terms of the contract dated 12-5-84 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 for construction works in the Farakka Super Power Thermal Project at Farakka. Out of the seven Bank guarantees, two are in lieu of security deposit and five are for securing mobilisation advance made by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner.2. The respondent No. 3 Indian Overseas Bank issued two guarantees particulars whereof are set out below :1)LG/013/8/84dated15-5-85forRs. 1,50,000/-2)LG/013/12/84dated26-9-84forRs. 1,00,000/-And the rest of these five Bank g...
Anadi Nath Roy Chowdhury Vs. Sudangshu Kr. Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal130
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. A suit for mesne profit instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party against the defendant-petitioner having been decreed, the defendant preferred an appeal and while allowing the appeal and sending the case back on remand to the trial court for retrial, the appellate court ordered that if the defendant-appellant fails to take steps for examining the Pleader Commissioner within two weeks from the receipt of the record in the trial court, 'the appeal shall standdismissed on contest with costs to the respondent'. The record reached the trial court on 23-4-84 and the trial court directed the defendant-petitioner to take steps by 30-4-84 for summoning the Pleader Commissioner. On 30-4-84, however, the defendant filed an application before the trial court for extension of time for the purpose of summoning the Pleader Commissioner on the ground of illness of the defendant and the trial court allowed the application in the presence of the plaintiff-opposite party ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.A. Paper and Card Board Factory Pvt. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Cal)176,[1986]160ITR877(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. M. A. Paper & Card Board Factory Pvt. Ltd., the assessee, was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. In the assessments, the assessee claimed relief under Section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending that the relief available to the assessee under the said section could not be availed of in the assessment year 1974-75, inasmuch as there were no profits and gains of the assessee in the said assessment year and, therefore, the said deficiency should be carried forward and set off against the profits and gains of the assessee arising in the said two assessment years.2. The Income-tax Officer found that for the assessment year 1974-75 no claim had been made by the assessee for deduction under Section 80J neither in the return nor in any other record.3. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, rejected the claim of the assessee for set off of carried forward deficiency under Section 80J(3).4. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also n...
Gonterman Peipers (India) Limited Vs. Additional Secretary to the Gove ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC33,1991LC286(Calcutta),1986(26)ELT471(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged a show cause notice dated 10th September, 1981 issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of India under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for revising the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise dated 30th April, 1981. The notice dated 27th November, 1981 has called upon the petitioner to pay duty at the rate of 8% under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The facts leading to the issuance of the said impugned notice are stated briefly hereafter.2. The petitioner manufactures cast iron rolls and cast steel rolls. Central Excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was at all material times leviable on the manufacture of the said Cast Iron Rolls and Cast Steel Rolls under. Item Nos. 25 and 26AA. respectively of the First Schedule to the said Act. The duty leviable under the ...
Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1986
Reported in: (1986)18ITD236(Kol.)
Commissioner was justified in invoking revisional powers where assessing officer did not consider the provision of section 46(2) and assess the loss on sale of shares as business loss, where shares were held as investment.Certain shares were acquired by the assessee at the time of incorporation of a company. Same were also shown as trade investment in the balance sheet and the profit and loss account and not as stock-in-trade. Though the book value of the shares was Rs. 1 Lac, it received Rs. 10,000 as final dividend from the liquidator. Having held that the assessee was dealer in shares in the earlier years, the Income Tax Officer allowed Rs. 90,000 as business loss. The Commissioner invoked section 263 by holding that the investment in shares was made by the assessee as an investor and not for selling the shares at profit and, therefore, the Income Tax Officer erred in not taking into account the provision of section 46(2).As the Income Tax Officer has not at all taken into account ...
Nagarmal Mahavir Prosad and anr. Vs. the Manager, United Bank of India ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal88,[1989]66CompCas292(Cal)
Nirendra Krishna Mitra, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner against the rejection of the writ application moved against the act of the respondent No. 1 in not selling the demand drafts to the writ petitioner No. 1 at the alleged agreed concessional rate of 6 paise per cent.2. The facts alleged in the writ petition inter alia are that the writ petitioner No. 1 is adistributor of Rationed Commodities in modified rationing area viz. Lalgola and Bhagabangola in the district of Murshidabad under the Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal. The writ petitioner No. 1 takes delivery of the rationed commodities from the godowns of the Food Corporation of India, payment of such commodities are accepted by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India through demand drafts. Since the inception of the Lalgola Branch of the United Bank of India, the writ petitioner No. 1 had all along been making payment of the said rationed articles to the Food Corporation ...
Assistant Collector of Customs for Exports, Calcutta and ors. Vs. Hoar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal181,1986(10)ECC220,1987(11)LC193(Calcutta),1986(25)ELT516(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts and proceedings leading up to this appeal are, inter alia, as follows :2. At the material time, a Notification No. IPC (Genl. 44)/65 issued by the Ministry of Commerce was in force. The said Notification read as follows ; --'S. O. 3613 -- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947), the-Central Government hereby prohibits the import and export of all goods, whether directly or indirectly, into or from any port or place in India, from or to any place in Rhodesia.' No. IPC (Genl. 44)/65P. SabanayagamChief Controller of Imports & Exports'. 3. M/s. Hoare Miller & Co. Ltd., the respondent in this appeal carries on the business, inter alia, of export of jute goods from India. In or about September 1967, the respondent presented three shipping bills to the Customs authorities at Calcutta for export of 80 bales of hessian bags and 50 bales of jute twist. On amendment of the shipping bills the goods...
Smt. Katya Bala Dasi and anr. Vs. Nilmoni Pakhira and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal248
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal from original decree, was directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th July 1973, as passed in Title Suit No. 50 of 1968 by Shri S. N. Ghose, the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly and whereby, the concerned Title Suit was decreed in a preliminary form on contest and it was declared that the plaintiff/respondents would have 8 annas share in 'Ka' Schedule properties of the plaint and they would also be entitled to get their shares partitioned by metes and bounds. The parties were further directed to effect an amicable partition by 31st Aug. 1973, failing which, it has been directed that a Partition Commissioner would be appointed by the Court, for effecting partition as per the share as mentioned above, upon an application made by either of the parties. The said Title Suit No. 50 of 1968 was heard analogously with Title Suit No. 50 of 1971 of the same Court and which was filed by the defendants Smt. Katya Bala Dasi and another and the subsequ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »