Kolkata Court December 1987 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.
Bharat General and Textile Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)27ITD375(Kol.)
Issue relating to section 80-J relief had been considered and decided by Commissioner(Appeals)'s order, therefore, assessing officer could not entertain such issue for retification.Section 154(1A) empowers the assessing officer to rectify a mistake in an order passed by him even where such order has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision except where the mistake relates to matters which had been so considered and decided. In this case, the matter of relief under section 80-J had already been considered by the appellate authorities. By the time the assessee preferred petition under section 154, the assessing officer's order on the point of section 80-J relief got merged in the Commissioner(Appeals) order. So, it had to be taken that the question of quantum of deduction has been considered and decided. Therefore, section 154(1A) did not apply.1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 2-6-1986 for the assessme...
i.T.C. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Cal294,92CWN1035,1988(16)ECC68,1988(34)ELT473(Cal)
ORDERBhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. 1. This writ application was moved by the petitioner company against a show cause notice dated 27th March, 1987 issued by Shri N. K. Bajpai, Director, Directorate of Ami Evasion (Central Excise) New Delhi, whereby the petitioner company was, inter alia, directed to show cause why Central Excise Duty to the extent of Rs. 803.75 crores which was allegedly short paid by the.petitioner company should not be demanded under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.2. The facts, in short, relevant for the purpose of determination of the questions raised in this case are as follows : --The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of cigarettes having its registered office at Calcutta and have five factories situated at Bombay, Bangalore, Saharanpur Munger and Calcutta respectively. The petitioner company sells cigarette manufactured by it through wholeseller, secondary wholes...
Vishanji Dungarmal Futnani Vs. Mohanlal Dungarmal Futnani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal402,(1989)1CALLT31(HC)
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940, challenging the existence, validity and effect of the arbitration agreement dt. 14-7-83 and the award dt. 12-11-1983, praying for a declaration that both are invalid, null and void. The main contesting parties are the petitioner and the respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are two sons of one Dungarmal Bachumal Futnani, since deceased. The said deceased, his two sons and the members of the respective family of his two sons were interested in a number of Private Limited and Public Limited Companies, several partnership firms and a public charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Trust Act 1950. These businesses were carried on from Calcutta, Bombay and Madras and these companies and firms were the owners of various immovable properties situate at different places. One of such properties is known as 'Futnani Chambers' situate at No. 6/A, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road...
Vinod Gupta Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1987
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC328,1988(18)LC198(Calcutta),1988(37)ELT44(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. The petitioner carries on business under the name & style of M.B. Impex as sole proprietor thereof. He obtained several REP licences for valuable consideration. All the said REP licences permit Importation of Inter alia, 'seeds/bulbs/mother plant/germ plasm'.2. Under similar REP licences permitting Importation of Inter alia, seeds/bulbs/mother plant/germ plasm, S.V.A Udyog Viniyog Ltd. In the month of April 1987 Imported 8 consignments of rapeseed and all of them were cleared by Calcutta Customs upon being satisfied that the said imports were covered by relative Import licences. Similarly, Agro Impex imported 9 consignments of rapeseed on the strength of similar import licences in the month of April 1987 and Calcutta Customs cleared the same.3. In view of express permission for importation of seed as contained In the Import licence and actual Importation of rapeseeds by M/s. S.V.A Udyog Viniyog Ltd. and M/s. Agro Impex as mentioned hereinbefore and various oth...
Santosh Kumar Sarkar Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1828
J.N. Chaudhuri, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1984 arises out of a conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and the sentences for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default R.I. for six months. The amount of fine, if realised, was directed to be paid to the near relations of the victim. The trial was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri, being Sessions Case No. 8 of 1983.2. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows:On 7th Mar., 1981 the deceased Dinesh Sarkar, the accused Santosh Sarkar, Manindra Sarkar, Harendra Sarkar and many others gathered in the house of Manindra Sarkar at the village Harinathpur, P.S. Falakata. They had been discussing the marriage of one Yosada Sarkar. The complainant Mahim Chandra Sarkar started preparing a list of articles and expenses connected with the marriage. At that time Dinesh Sarkar cried out in pain. It was seen that the accused Santosh Sarkar was holding a knife in his hand and he had stabbed Dinesh ...
N.V. Philips' Gloeilempenfabrieken Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1987
Reported in: [1988]172ITR541(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts material as on record in and the proceedings leading up to this reference are, inter alia, that N. V. Philips' Gloeilempenfabrieken, the assessee, which is a non-resident company incorporated in the Netherlands, entered into an agreement with one Crookes Interfran Ltd., an Indian company, in writing on July 8, 1964, under which the assessee agreed to furnish to the Indian company assistance and information at the disposal of the assessee in respect of working methods, manufacturing processes and methods of application relating to vitamin D to enable the Indian company to manufacture, use and sell vitamin D in India. The agreement provided, inter alia, that the assessee would provide to the Indian company the following data, assistance and information:(a) Drawings with detailed instructions and directions for a plant to be set up in the specified territory by the Indian company of an agreed capacity of production for the purpose of manufacturing vitamin D...
Subhas Chandra Bose Vs. the Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1987
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT376(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner Subhas Chandra Bose has challenged the illegal grant of promotion in respect of private respondent Nos. 8 and 9, without preparing any detailed seniority list and prayed for issue of appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus not to give effect and/or further effect to, the seniority list of Sub-Assistant Engineers of the Engineering Department of Calcutta Improvement Trust, which is Annexure T to the writ petition, and further to prepare a seniority list of Sub-Assistant Engineers and also further commanding the respondents to fix up the seniority position of the petitioner, in accordance with the resolution of the Board, which is Annexure 'H', after re-checking the Board's resolutions, dated January 22, 1972, and July 20, 1974.2. The writ petition was moved before T. K. Basu, J, on June 8, 1981, arid came up for disposal before me on April 6, 1987, and hearing was concluded on May 19, 1987, and judgment was r...
Sabitri Bala Ray Vs. Gouri Sankar Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT393(HC),92CWN870
G.N. Ray, J.1. These Rules are directed against the Judgment and Order, dated 21st November, 1984 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Burdwan in Misc. Appeals Nos. 104 and 103 of 1983 affirming the judgment and Order No. 63, dated 4th June, 1983 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Burdwan in Misc. Cases Nos. 25 and 34 of 1979.2. It appears that the opposite party Gouri Sankar Dutta purchased the Kha Schedule property on 8th June, 1978 from the owner Shri Nani Gopal Panja. The said Gouri Sankar Dutta came to know from the certified copy of the Kobala that the husband of the petitioner Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Roy purchased Ka schedule property by a Kobala, dated 23rd August, 1978 and as such, Sri Gouri Sankar Dutta being an earlier purchaser and thus becoming a cosharer of the property intended to pre-empt and he made an application for pre-emption of the disputed property under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act on that ground.3. It is an admitted case that the sale...
HasimuddIn Mandal Vs. Golam Mahebub and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1900
ORDERGobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the Judgment and order dated the 11th May 1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Murshidabad, while exercising his power of revision in connection with a case under Sections 447/147/427 of the IPC. The accused opposite parties Nos. 1 to 9 were charge-sheeted on the aforesaid penal sections and they were facing a trial before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lalbag, in C.R. Case No. 382 of 1973. The learned Magistrate was pleased to pass an order of acquittal in connection with that case. Being aggrieved thereby the complainant, Hasimuddin Mondal, the present petitioner, filed a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge who heard the matter dismissed the application on the ground that under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code the aggrieved de facto complainant had a right to move the Hon'ble High Court in appeal against tha...
Calcutta Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(34)ELT628(Cal)
Pratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the 'order dated 25th August, 1986 being 'Annexure 'E' to the petition passed by the respondent No. 1.2. The short history of the case is that the petitioner is a manufacturer of 'Margo Soap'. The petitioner paid provisional excise duty on 30th June, 1984. The excise duty payable was ascertained during the period between 11th September, 1984 and 27/30 October, 1984 and the ascertained sum was found to be Rs. 36,08,161.14. The petitioner was allowed to pay the said sum by 12 instalments as mentioned at page 37, being Annexure 'B' to the petition. Subsequently, on scrutiny of the demand notices, the petitioner found that by mistake an excess sum of Rs. 5,97,343.98 was demanded and realised by the Central Excise Authorities, - respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. The petitioner states that last three instalments i.e. rupees three lakhs; was paid on 15.1.1986 rupees three lakhs was paid on 31.1.1986 and Rs. 8,161.14 wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »