Kolkata Court August 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.
Sankar Lal Narayan Prosad Vs. Satya Narayan Berlia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal221
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. In this appeal the appellant challenges a decree for eviction passed against them by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in a suit filed by the respondents. The case of the plaintiff/respondents, as made out in the plaint, is as follows :Under a registered deed of lease dated February 18, 1956 the defendant/appellant became a tenant in respect of a flat on the first floor or premises No. 208 Jamunalal Bazaz Street, Calcutta for a period of sixteen years commencing from 1st Magh Sudi 2012 S.Y. corresponding to 12-2-56 under M/s. Samdeo Gopiram, a registered partnership firm at a monthly rental of Rs. 301/5/(Rs. 301.31) according to Hindi Sambat which was subsequently increased to Rs. 351.31 due to enhancement of municipal taxes. During the subsistence of the lease the plaintiffs purchased the entire premises No. 208, Jamunalal Bazaz Street, Calcutta by an indenture of conveyance dated 9-9-1969 and became absolute owner thereof. By virtue ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahadeo Ram Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR477(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts material and the proceedings leading up to this reference are, inter alia, that by a notification dated May 15, 1958, the Government of India had taken over the management of Jessop and Co. Ltd., a public limited company carrying on business of manufacture of machinery and equipment for a limited period. By subsequent notifications issued respectively on May 6, 1961, and April 25, 1963, the Government of India continued to retain the management of the said company and, at the material time, the management of Jessop and Co. Ltd. remained with the Government of India.2. Subsequently, the Government of India decided to purchase an adequate number of shares of Jessop & Co. Ltd. to obtain a controlling interest in the said company. The shares of Jessop & Co. Ltd. were quoted regularly in the stock exchange. At the material time, the total issued ordinary shares of Jessop & Co. Ltd. were 20,40,000 of Rs. 10 each fully paid up.3. On July 17, 1963, an agreement ...
Tarak Nath Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR468(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Tarak Nath Gupta, the assessee, was assessed to income-tax as an individual for the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee filed his return for the said assessment year on February 24, 1971. During the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had not shown in the return the income arising out of a truck of which the assessee was the owner since 1946. The assessee contended and also made a statement on oath under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that he did not own any vehicle. But, ultimately, the assessee admitted by hisletter dated December 16, 1972, that the said truck stood registered in his name and as it was difficult for him to prove that it belonged to another person and not to him, he offered to be assessed on the income from the same. The Income-tax Officer also detected that the assessee had a savings bank account with Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd., the interest arising from which had not been shown in his return. T...
Champa Properties (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR367(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. The facts relevant and the proceedings leading up to this reference are, inter alia, that one Champabati Devi Chamariapurchased out of her stridhan four immovable properties at Calcutta, viz., 21A, Shakespeare Sarani; 114/1 A, Cotton Street; 6, Madan Mohan Street and 106, Diamond Harbour Road. Subsequently, Champabati sold undivided 1% share of the said properties each to ten of her close relatives for Rs. 17,000; The transaction was effected by registered deeds.2. Champabati and the other co-owners of the said properties thereafter formed a joint stock company of the name of M/s Champa Properties (P.) Ltd., the assessee. Champabati held 90% of the shares in the company and the other co-sharers held the balance 10%. The assessee was subsequently registered under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956, as a company as defined in Section 566(1) of the Companies Act. A certificate of incorporation was issued on September 20, 1968. It was the case of the assessee that un...
Sanatan Mondal Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ238
Sukumar Chakravarty, J.1. Criminal Appeals Nos. 129, 140 and 179 of 1985 have arisen out of the conviction and sentence of the respective appellants in Sessions Trial No. 10(7) of 1984 passed by Shri R. Goswami, the learned Additional Session Judge, 4th Court, Alipore.2. The appellant Sanatan Mondal in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 1985, appellant Subhendu Poddar, Dulal Roy, Bimal Das and Kamal Roy in Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 1985 and appellant Arun Kumar Chakrabarty in Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1985 were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 395 read with Section 397 I.P.C.3. Appellants Subhendu and Kamal each were further convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a direction that the sentences of the aforesaid two accused person under Section 395/397 I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act would run concurrently.4. All the aforesaid accused persons were put to trial on the charge under Section 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›