Kolkata Court July 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.
Swapan Kumar Singha Roy and anr. Vs. Anil Kumar Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ60
ORDERSudhanshu Sekhar Ganguly, J.1. Both the cases are taken up together, as both the cases involve same points of law.2. Case No. 494-D of 1977 of the Court of the 2nd Municipal Magistrate and Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is proceeding against the present petitioners sellers of Banaspati - and opposite parties 2 and 3 being the dealers from whom the aforementioned sellers had purchased the said supply of Banaspati under the provisions of Section 16 Sub-section (a)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act on allegation that the said Banaspati on being examined by the Public Analyst was found adulterated. The petitioners in Revision No. 2026 of 1981 prayed that the aforementioned case be quashed as they had purchased their supply of the Banaspati in question from the aforementioned dealers in closed sealed pack tins and were given cash memos with written warranty in the prescribed form and further that they had stored the same in a proper way.3. Revision No. 539 of 1986 has be...
Tapan Kumar Mitra Vs. Manick Lal Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ1483
Sudhanshu Sekhar Ganguly, J.1. This revisional application under Sections 397/401/482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for the quashing of the proceeding in case No. C-323 of 1983 pending before Shri H. P. Chatterjee, Judicial Magistrate, second Court, Sealdah.2. Admittedly the accused petitioner and the complainant opposite party No. 1 were running a partnership business under the name and style of 'M/s. Metal Cap Company' from November, 1979. In terms of the deed of partnership the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaypore at its branch at 227-A and 227-B of Acharya Prafullya Chandra Road, Police Station Ultadanga were the creditors and bankers of the partnership.3. The opposite party lodged the complaint in May, 1983 alleging that at different times beginning from March, 1981 to Dec. 1981, the petitioner accused received cheques payable to the said partnership but instead of depositing them with the Bank mentioned above got them encashed through an account with the United Bank of India Belgachia B...
Mrityunjoy Das Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ909
ORDERSudhanshu Sekhar Ganguly, J.1. It appears that T.S. No. 42 of 1975 of the Munsif's Court at Nabadwip, District Nadia was instituted by Narayan Gopal Dey and eight others against Radha Ballabh Ghosh for recovery of a shop-room situated at holding No. 87B/1 on the Bazar Road within Nabadwip Municipality and tenanted by the said Radha Ballabh. It appears that both the petitioners acquired 1/9th share of tile land and structure covered by plot No. 1282/9519 holding No. 88B/1 Bazar Road by purchase from the heirs of Kartick Chandra, one of landlord-plaintiffs and the tenant attorned in their favour. They both applied for being added as parties to the aforementioned T.S. No. 42 of 1975 and petitioner No. 1 Mrityunjoy was added as a pro forma defendant to the said suit whereas the petitioner of Dhananjoy went on pending.2. T.S. No. 42 of 1975 was decreed on compromise in terms of a solemnama filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant Radha Ballav (Annexure C) against the said defendant an...
Musst. Saidunessa Haque Vs. Mrs. Badrunessa Zilani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ62
ORDERSudhanshu Sekhar Ganguly, J.1. Late Md. Ziaul Haque, a distinguished citizen of this city created a wakf in respect of his properties orally on 22-5-53 and thereafter by a deed of declaration dt. 8-5-83. Under the terms of this wakf he appointed the opposite party Mrs. Badrunessa as Mutwalli in respect of demarcated 1/4th share of a house situated at No. 18, Ganesh Chandra Avenue. The opposite party ran away with Md. Golam Zeelani, the husband of her second elder sister Jahaeetunessa on or about 19-11-68 and was not in Calcutta till December, 1977. Before that on 8-11-68 the Wakeef executed a deed of rectification whereby he appointed his youngest daughter Maherunnessa the Mutwalli of the said property in place of the opposite party under the guardianship of her mother, the present petitioner Saidunnessa. The Wakeef died on 29-5-73.2. At the petition of Saidunnessa the then Commissioner of Wakf Mr. I. Choudhury rectified the records of the Wakf Estate by replacing the name of the ...
Guest Keen Williams Ltd. Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1986
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ37Cal
Ganendra Narayan Ray, J.1. In this application for stay, the appellant-petitioner-company, namely, Guest Keen Williams Ltd. has contended that pursuant to an agreement entered into between the company and the junior management staff of the said company, inter alia, to the effect that the said members of the junior management staff were included in the category of the officers and not in the category of workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, certain benefits had been conferred on the said members of the junior management staff during the pendency of a reference proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. A copy of the said agreement was made available before the learned Judge of the Tribunal and he was informed on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that in view of such agreement, there was no occasion for any industrial dispute in the said reference proceeding because the members of the junior management staff had...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Alkali and Chemical Corporation of Indi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Cal)313,[1987]165ITR698(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions, stated to be 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 and on a proper interpretation of law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assets used in scientific research are also entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though 100% of the capital expenditure was allowed as deduction under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in holding that the assessee was entitled to development rebate at the higher rate envisaged in Section 33 read with item 18 of the Fifth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, had relied on irrelevant materials and/or otherwise misdirected itself in arriving at the above finding ? 3. Whether on a proper interpretation...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›