Kolkata Court September 1986 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. P.C. Ray and Co. (India) (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas625(Cal)
Pratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The parties to these proceedings had entered into a contract on August 31, 1951, containing an arbitration Clause for adjudication of disputes arising out of the contract or relating thereto by two arbitrators. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties from time to time, five separate references were started between the parties. All the five references were private references and were as follows:1. In 1961, the respondent company as the claimant made the first reference against the Union of India for recovery of Rs. 2,08,12,135 and the Union of India made certain counter-claims therein. 2. In March, 1964, the Union of India as the claimant made the second reference for recovery of Rs. 1,00,90,041.39 and the respondent company made certain counter-claims in that reference. 3. In July, 1964, the respondent started the third reference claiming Rs. 39,00,000 and the Union of India made certain counter-claims therein. 4. In October, 1969, the fourth...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR268(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, the applicant, seeks a certificate that the judgment delivered on April 3, 1978, in Income-tax Reference No. 101 of 1969 is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court inasmuch as substantial questions of law arise out of the judgment. Five questions of law have been suggested. It appears to us that only questions Nos. (iii), (iv) and (v) can be said to be of some substance and are required to be considered :'(iii) Whether the Income-tax Officer could levy penalty in respect of the enhancement made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? (iv) Where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner modifies the original assessment and deletes the addition under the head 'Income from undisclosed sources' and enhances the business income for undervaluation of stock, could it be said that the basis of the assessment had changed ? (v) If the original basis of initiation of proceedings is altered or modified by the appellate authority, wh...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Dulal Hazra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: 1987CriLJ857
ORDERMonoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. Mantu Mondal and Dulal Hazra, the two appellants herein, were placed on trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah to answer the following charges:First: - That you on or about the 5th day of April, 1984 at Kashipur, Dasnagar, under Police Station Jagachha, District Howrah, in furtherance of common intention of you both did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Sm. Prasad Rani Patra, and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.:Secondly :- That you on the same day and at the same place committed the theft in the house of Sm. Dharitri Patra in respect of golden Tikli, golden chains, one pair golden ring, golden Bala, golden ear-rings, golden Nakchhabi, bronze Churi, Sonali Churi, golden like Churi, silver Kazallata, medal, silver chain, large amount of cash money, torchlight, calculator, wrist watch, etc., by taking the said articles out of possession of Smt. Dharitri Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Assam Consolidated Tea Estates Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR215(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. Assam Consolidated Tea Estates Limited, the assessee, is a non-resident sterling company incorporated in the United Kingdom. On April 1, 1957, another sterling company was incorporated also in the United Kingdom under the name and style of Assam Consolidated Tea Estates (India) Limited as a 100% subsidiary of the assessee. An agreement was entered into by and between the assessee and the subsidiary on April 1, 1957. It was recorded in the said agreement, inter alia, that the subsidiary had been incorporated with the principal object of acquiring the undertaking and business of the assessee of its tea estates situated in India with all assets and liabilities thereof.2. The other terms and conditions of the said agreement were, inter alia, that--(a) the assessee would sell and transfer and the subsidiary would purchase and take over on and from April 1, 1957, the tea estates of the assessee in India known as Bhamun, Hesam, Hingrijan, Khowang and Tinkong Estates;(b) ...
Tag this Judgment!Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)0CALLT56(HC)
Susanta Chatterjee, J.1. This Revisional application is directed against the Order No. 51 dated 20.1.1986 passed by the Assistant District Judge Asansol, in Misc. Case No. 108/1981.2. The said Misc. Case arose out of an application dated 9.4.1981 for appointment of an Arbitrator and for submission of an Award. The Arbitrator so appointed submitted his Award on 3.12.1982 and thereafter the petitioner filed a petition in the Court below under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for pronouncing judgment and drawing up decree in accordance with law. The Opposite Party objected to the said prayer on the ground that the Award was not properly stamped, therefore, it could not be accepted by the Court and the same was liable to be rejected. In terms of Order No. 47 dated 23.1.1984, a preliminary point was raised as to whether the Award being not engrossed on a stamped paper, had any validity or could operate as an Award The said preliminary point was heard by the Court below and after discussing...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar Dey Vs. Kalpana Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal213,1986(2)CHN386,91CWN456
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. In assailing the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights granted by the trial Judge under Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, in favour of the respondent-wife and against the appellant-husband, Mr. Mitra, the learned Counsel for the appellant-husband, has very seriously urged that there was no marriage in fact between the parties to warrant the decree and that, even if there was a marriage in fact, there was no marriage in law as ceremonies essential to constitute a Hindu marriage have not been proved to have been preformed in this case. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at considerable length and having gone through the records ourselves, we are, however, satisfied that a marriage, both in fact and in law, between the parties has been satisfactorily proved to warrant the decree under appeal.2. As to the marriage in fact, the evidence adduced by and on behalf of the petitioner in support of the marriage is good in quality and great in quan...
Tag this Judgment!General Fibre Dealers Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC96,1986(26)ELT494(Cal)
Sudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a company carrying on business of, inter alia, importing and manufacturing various goods. The petitioner No. 2 is a share holder of petitioner No. 1.2. By a notification dated April 18, 1980, issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Government exempted Aluminium scrap when imported into India from so much of the Customs duty leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act as in excess of 35% ad valorem of customs duty leviable thereon.3. By a further notification dated January 1, 1981 the aforesaid exemption from basic Customs duty and additional duty was extended upto and inclusive of the 31st March, 1981.4. Relying on the aforesaid notification the petitioner No. 1 entered inter alia into two separate contracts for purchase of Aluminium scrap from foreign sellers.5. The ship carrying two consignments of Aluminium scrap entered into the territorial waters of India and docked at ...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Jhunjhunwalla Vs. B.N. Poddar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1986
Reported in: 1988CriLJ51
ORDERS. Ahmed, J.1. This application is directed against order dt. 31-5-1986 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in complaint case No. 230C/85, By the impugned order the Ld. Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be examined Under Section 205 of the Cr. P.C. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner filed a petition praying for allowing him to be represented by his lawyer and for permitting the Id. Advocate representing him to take plea of not guilty. On perusal of the record of Ld. Magistrate it is found that this petitioner was directed to be present but he did not turn up and he held that in the absence of the accd. the Ld. lawyer cannot be permitted to take the plea of not guilty. In his view the presence of all the accd. is necessary for examination Under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, he rejected the prayer.2. Mr. Roy appearing for the petitioner has challenged the finding of the ld. Magistrate to the effect that it was necessary for the accd...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Jayshree Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Cal194
Sukumar Chakravarty, J.1. The State Bank of India as the appellant-plaintiff in F.M.A.T. No. 614 of 1986 has filed this application for appointment of the Receiver in respect of the properties as mentioned in Schedules I to IV of the petition till the disposal of the aforesaid appeal with a prayer for ad interim appointment of the Receiver pending the hearing of the application for appointment of the Receiver.2. The aforesaid P.M.A.T. No. 614 of 1986 has arisen out of order D/- 22-11-85 in the Mortgage Title Suit No. 47 of 1985 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Asansole, whereby the learned Assistant District Judge while issuing the notice upon the defendants of the suit in connection with the plaintiff's application for appointment of the Receiver, has rejected the plaintiff's prayer for ad interim appointment of the Receiver.3. The Bench of this Court, presided over by Mr. Basak, J. and Mr. Das Ghosh, J. by its order dt 4-8-86 admitted the appeal and by its order ...
Tag this Judgment!Park Hotel (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Cal)228,[1987]167ITR60(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The material facts and the proceedings leading up to this reference are, inter alia, as follows: 2. M/s. Park Hotel (P.) Ltd., the assessee, obtained by way of assignment the unexpired period of a lease in respect of premises Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15, Park Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), from a firm by the name of Credit Transactors. The assignment was effected by a deed dated September 3, 1966. 3. In the assessment year 1971-72, the relevant accounting period ending on March 31, 1971, the assessee executed a sub-lease in respect of a portion of its leasehold interest in favour of M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., another limited company associated with the assessee. The said sub-lease was effected by a deed which was, however, not registered. M/s. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., paid a premium of Rs. 63,13,000 and has been paying rent of Rs. 15,000 per year in respect of the said sub-lease to the assessee. The portion of the said premi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »