Kolkata Court February 1987 Judgments
Dulal Chandra Roy Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal90
Sen, J.1. The petitioner at all material time was holding the post of Professor of Medicine, Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta. By an order dt. 28th Dec., 1967 the ground-floor, Flat No. 3, Block-I, Gariahat Housing Estate was allotted in his favour for use as his residence on payment of rent and taxes under R. 225 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I (Revised) with effect from the date of occupation. Pursuant to such allotment order the petitioner took possession of the said flat on 1st Feb. as a monthly tenant. By a subsequent order the petitioner was also allotted a garage being garage No. 22 of the said estate for the purpose of parking his car. On the prayer of the petitioner he was subsequently allowed to shift to flat No. 44 (1st Floor, Block-V) of the said Housing Estate and an order was also issued to that effect on 6th July, 1970 permitting him to shift to the new flat. Since 6th July, 1970 the petitioner has been in possession and/or occupation of the said flat No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Rama Debi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal38
ORDERBhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. In the writ application, the petitioners challenged the validity of the orders dt. 30th Mar., 1978, 9th Feb. 1979 and 21st Jan. 1980 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the order dt. 29th Aug. 1980 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue.2. The fact of the case in short, is that, the respondents, Mrs. Sally I. D. Rodda, the respondent 9 acquired the holding No: 56 and 56/1, Kings Road, Howrah by virtue of a deed of gift from her mother Mrs. Sophia Bibi Jackob. The holding No. 65/1, Kings Road is measured about 33 cottahs 6 chitaks of land covered by a pucca structure, a number of R. T. and C. I. sheds and several khatals. According to the petitioner, 56/1 Kings Road was a property comprised of land with building and did not fell under the mischief of the Urban' Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. It was stated that by way of abundant caution, the said Respondent No. 8, Mrs. Rod...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Singh and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1307
Sudhanshu Sekhar Ganguly, J.1.This is an appeal from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Shri S.C. Dutta, Additional Sessions Judge, Fifth Court, Midnapore in S.T. case No. II of May, 1983 convicting both the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing both to imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to R.I. for one month each.2. The prosecution case was that the two appellants along with twelve other accused way laid one Banabehari Pal at about 10/11 a.m. on 16-7-81 when the present two appellants assaulted him with a spade and an axe and killed him almost instantaneously. All the fourteen accused stood their trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Under Sections 302/34 and 120-B, I.P.C. on the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution the learned Judge found only the charge Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. established against only the present two appellants and he convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karam Chand Thapar and Sons Limited (No ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Cal)167,[1987]166ITR636(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J. 1. This reference arises out of the assessment of M/s. Karam Chand Thapar & Sons Ltd., the assessee, to income-tax for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, the relevant accounting years ending on the 30th June of 1963 and 1964.2. In the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee sold certain shares of other companies held by it at a loss of Rs. 22,969. The assessee contended that it had held shares by way of investment and claimed the loss as capital loss. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that the assessee was a dealer in shares and, accordingly, treated the loss as a business loss.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal against the said decision to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee in earlier years, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee was holding the shares by way of investment and that there was nothing to show that the assessee dealt in shares in the s...
Tag this Judgment!Pradip Ghosh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ366
Jitendra Nath Chaudhuri, J.1. This criminal appeal No. 319 of 1978 arises out of Sessions Trial No. 5(3) of 1978 held by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge Cooch Behar. In the said trial the present appellant Pradip Ghose alias Khaju was convicted Under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years. He was also convicted Under Section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. He was also convicted Under Section 342 I.P.C. but no separate sentence was imposed. The said offences were committed by the appellant on 18-9-76.2. At the hearing of this appeal on 15-5- 86 this Court, in view of the submissions made by Mr. Somraj Dutt, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. Mukherjee, learned P.P., this Court remitted the following issue for determination to the learned Session Judge, Cooch Behar:What was the age of the accused-appellant Pradip Ghose alies Khaju on 18-9-76.The learned Session Judge was asked to ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Leonhardt Andra Und Partner
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD607(Kol.)
1. These appeals - one by the department and the other by the assessee - relate to the assessment year 1981-82. These were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The assessee-company is a foreign company registered in West Germany with registered office at Stuttgart. On 19-7-1974 the asses see-company entered into a design contract with the Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the HRBC) in connection with the design of the second Hooghly bridge to be built over the river Hooghly. It also entered into a separate contract for supervision services with the HRBC but we are not concerned with the contract. The HRBC is a statutory authority created by the State of West Bengal for the purpose of construction of the said bridge and M/s. Bhagirathi Bridge Construction Co. Ltd. was a contractor engaged 'for designing and constructing the bridge' and maintaining the same for a certain period. The said contractor had appointed M/s. Freeman Fox & P...
Tag this Judgment!Liverghi Sk. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: 1989CriLJ380
1. No one appears for the appellant. Mr. Roy appears for the accused respondents Nos. 2 to 5 at the hearing of the appeal.2. This appeal by Special Leave under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the father of the deceased Afzal Sk. arises out of Session Trial No. 4/77. The State v. Eradut Langra and Ors. held by the learned Sessions Judge, Malda. In the said trial all the four accused persons who are the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein were found not guilty of the charge under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and acquitted on 23rd November, 1977.3. Mr. Roy the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the four accused respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein has submitted that this appeal by Special Leave under Section 378(4) of the said Code is not maintainable as this was not a case instituted on a complaint and the appellant herein has no locus stand in the matter. He has submitted that this was a case in which the F.I.R. was lodged resulting in the starting of Ratua P.S.; Cas...
Tag this Judgment!Revlon Inc. and ors. Vs. Kemco Chemicals and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Cal285
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The above suit is a passing off action instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them, their servants, assigns and each of them from manufacturing, selling or purchasing perfumery, cosmetics and toiletries containing the name 'Ontue' or any other similar name on the allegation that the name 'Ontue' not only sounds similar to plaintiffs' trade mark 'Jontue' but its style of writing 'Ontue' is almost a facsimile of stylized writing 'Jontue'. There is also a prayer for damages for Rs. 1,01,000/- or an enquiry into damages and decree for the amount found due on such enquiry. It is also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and .1 are wholly owned and are subsidiaries of the plaintiff No. I and they have been carrying on business all over the world including India since 1976 using their trade mark 'Jontue'. In the above suit an interlocutory application was taken out by the plaintiffs for restraining the...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Nath Saha and A.N. Saha Vs. High Court and 4 ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)0CALLT107(HC),91CWN912
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed, against the decision of the learned Trial Judge, dated 22nd April, 1985 made in Civil Order No. 7435(W) of 1983.2. The appellant moved a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of as a contested application upon notice to the respondents in Civil Order No. 7435(W) of 1983. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the legality and validity of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner appellant on the basis of a Full Court decision of this Court and also against an order of suspension passed against the writ petitioner appellant as contained in the memo issued by the Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court by the order of the Full Court. The appellant is a member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service and at the time of initiating the said disciplinary proceeding against him and passing an order of suspension he was holding the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in the dis...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Prasad Agarwal Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: 1989(43)ELT273(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. It appears that the process of the court is being abused of this Writ petition. The petitioner claims to have entered into a contract with a foreign party in Singapore for import of 200 M.Ts. of HDPE. (High Density Polythelene). The petitioner has not given any date, but has stated generally that in the month of June, 1986 the petitioner received intimation from the foreign party that the said goods had been shipped by the foreign party. The petitioner has stated that documents in connection with the aforesaid shipment was thereafter presented for payment to the banker of petitioner M/s. Bank of Madura Ltd., Brabourne Road, Calcutta and the documents were duly retired by payment of a sum of Rs. 8,72,000/- from the account of the petitioner.2. Here again the dates are not mentioned. Whether any letter of credit was opened, if so, when, in whose name the bill of lading was made out, particulars of the contract and the date of retirement of the document, have not b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »