Kolkata Court February 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.
Guardian Plasticote Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: 1987(29)ELT517(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. In this case, a rule Nisi was issued as early as on 22.8.1975. An interim order was issued restraining the respondents, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Ors., from giving effect to the demand of Rs. 1,07,957.56 P unconditionally for a period of four weeks and thereafter conditionally upon the petitioner's furnishing bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court. The bank guarantee was not furnished in time. The Court allowed the petitioners extension of time for furnishing bank guarantee on 23rd September, 1975, 21st November, 1975, 4th March, 1976 and again on 8th August, 1977. At the time of granting extension on 8.8.1977 it was made clear that time was being extended till 9th September, 1977 and no further extension will be granted. On 9th September, 1977, however, the bank guarantee was not furnished. The matter was mentioned in Court and the petitioner was given liberty to furnish cash s...
Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. Vs. Special Secretary to the Governme ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: 1988(17)LC229(Calcutta),1987(30)ELT67(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The dispute in this case is about classification of N.G. Poster Paper manufactured by Orient Paper and Industries Limited, herein- after described as the petitioner company, for the purpose of assessment of excise duty.2. Upto 28th February, 1961, Printing 3c Writing Paper and Packing & Wrapping Paper were subject to Excise Duty @ 22p. Per Kg. though the former was charged under item 17(3) and the latter under item 17(4) of the Tariff. The Finance Act of 1961 raised the Excise duty under item 17(4) to 35p. Per Kg. with effect from 1-3-61. From March, 1961 to 1st August, 1961, the Excise Office levied duty on M.G. Poster Paper under item 17(3), i.e. at the rate of 22p. per kg. as Printing & Writing Paper. In other words, M.G. Poster Paper was treated as Printing & Writing Paper. Subsequently, the Excise Deptt. considered this M.G. Poster Paper as Packing & Wrapping Paper and classified the said Poster Paper under item 17(4). The appellant paid duty under protest ...
Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1987
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC13,1988(17)LC225(Calcutta),1987(30)ELT87(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. During the period between August, 1961 and May, 1968 a dispute arose about the classification of M.G. Poster Paper manufactured by the petitioner, the Central Excise authorities claimed that the M.G. Poster Paper was assessable to duty under Tariff Item 17(4) as packing wrapping paper whereas the contention of the petitioner company was that the M.G. Poster Paper should be assessed to duty under tariff Item 17(3) as printing/writing paper. The Central Excise authorities collected duties on the goods manufactured by it under tariff Item 17(4) and such duties were paid by the petitioner under protest.2. The petitioner company preferred appeals to the appellate authorities. The appellate proceedings contained for a long time. The matters went upto the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the Collector for deciding afresh on 3rd May 1968. The Appellate Collectoi of Cciucal Excise decided 32 appeals pending before him for different periods and ...
Harihar Pal and ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal68,91CWN958
ORDER 41 Rule 27 of the Civil P.C. for admitting some document as additional piece of evidence on the grounds as alleged in the petition. 9. Mr. Bagchi appearing for the appellant landlords has submitted that the learned President was wrong in not relying on the Kabuliyat Ext. B(i) which was the certified copy of the registered Kabuliyat executed on the 1st May, 1929 and that the said Kabuliyat shows that Kshetra Mohan Pal, the father of claimant Sudhir Kumar Pal was the tenant at will under the predecessor of the present landlords in respect of only 6 cottahs land out of the land in plot No. 731 of Khatian No. 589 and that by the terms of the said Kabuliyat Kshetra Mohan Pal abandoned the claim on compensation for the land in favour of the landlord in case of acquisition. According to Mr. Bagchi, the said Kabuliyat, the written statement filed by referee-claimant-tenants and the compromise petition filed by those claimants and accepted by the learned President have proved that the ent...
income-tax Officer Vs. Arvind Kumar Lohia
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD91(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the department is directed against the order dated 25-4-1985 passed Toy the AAC. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner erred in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the deduction of the interest amount of Rs. 29,195 from the business income of the assesses.3. Though the facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass, the issue involved is of considerable importance. The assessee is an individual. The assessment year involved is 1981-82 for which the relevant accounting year ended on 2037 Ram Navami. The assessee is a partner in the firm East India Transport Agency. The said firm changed its accounting year from Ram Navami to 30th June as a result of which there was no assessment of the firm for the assessment year 1981-82.The assessee accordingly had no share income from the firm and for the assessment year under consideration the assessee has not, therefore, shown any income from th...
Sahadat HossaIn Vs. Sub-divisional Controller of F. and S., Katwa Burd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal44
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. The present writ petition was moved challenging the impugned order of cancellation of M. R. DealershipAgreement of the petitioner dated Sept. 22/23, 1980 passed by the Sub-divisional Controller Food & Supplies, Katwa invoking Clause 18 of the agreement which is annexure 'D' to the present Writ Petition.2. By the said impugned order the authority had considered that the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner dated August 18, 1980 in reply to the impugned show cause notice dated Aug. 2, 1980 was not at all satisfactory as the petitioner had drawn sugar for 3200 units, but did not supply 425 units from July 11, 1980 to July 27, 1980, depriving the consuming Ration Card Holders. Moreover, the petitioner supplied sugar twice in a week to certain Ration Card Holders which was also most irregular and invoked Clause 18 of the terms and conditions of the Agreement and passed the order of cancellation, which was to be effective after the expiry of 30 days fro...
Amar Nath Khanna Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ277Cal
Manash Nath Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated August 1, 1980, passed in Civil Rule No. 8989(W) of 1978, whereby an application dated June 21,1980, as filed by the appellant petitioner, was disposed of on certain terms. In fact, the prayers as made in the said application and more particularly the one relating to prayer (a) was allowed in entirety and the other prayers were not allowed in their entirety. The prayers as made would be indicated hereinafter.2. In or about November, 1940, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the services of the Imperial Bank of India which, since 1955 and on the coming into force of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, is known as State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Bank') arid he was confirmed in that post in May, 1941. It has been stated that thereafter, in or about July, 1952, the petitioner was promoted to the post of an Assistant and (Subsequently he was confirmed as Staff Assistant. It was the further c...
Jeena and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC117
S.R. Roy, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Jeena & Co., is a clearing and forwarding agent established in the year 1900, having its Head Office at 10, Veer Nariman Point, Bombay and its Calcutta Office at 19B, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. The petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of the petitioner No. 1.2. The petitioner No. 1 is the holder of a licence under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Regulation') for carrying on business of clearing and forwarding agency.3. Mr. J. Sala, a French tourist, sent two consignments on two occasions in the year 1984-85 through the petitioner No. 1. The customs authority duly checked, scrutinised and appraised the said consignments and passed the same for export. The said Mr. Sala who described himself as a French tourist, once again came to the office of the petitioner No. 1 in the middle of August, 1986 with necessary documents for shipment of a consignment of tourist purchases to Rotterdam a...
Benoy Krishna Tewary and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Cal190,91CWN1074
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. Thetrial court having decreed the suit for partition on the finding that the suit-properties are Mitakshara coparcenery properties and the appellate court having dismissed the suit on reversal of the finding, the only question involved in this second appeal is whether the suit properties are Mitakshara coparcenary properties as found by the trial Judge or are separate properties as held by the appellate Court. There does not appear to be any misapprehension of the relevant laws either by the trial court or by the appellate court. But we are satisfied that there has been such serious misreading of the relevant portions of the plaint and the evidence by the appellate court as to have amounted to 'no-reading' at all warranting our intervention in second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil P.C., as it stood before the Amendment of 1976, governing this appeal.2. Parties, though residing for generations in the Dayabhagi State of Bengal (now West Bengal), are still ...
Prabir Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Kaveri Guha Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Cal191,91CWN870
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This revisional application must be rejected as no jurisdictional issue, which alone can sustain such an application, appears to have been involved. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only two grounds in support of the revisional application and both of them appear to us to be without substance.2. The instant application arises out of a matrimonial proceeding initiated by the wife/ opposite party by a petition for divorce of her marriage with the husband/petitioner on various grounds like cruelty, adultery etc. The petition for divorce has been labelled as one both under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act and the reason for the same appears to be that the marriage between the parties was first solemnised according to Hindu rites under the Hindu Marriage Act and was thereafter also registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. As will appear from the provisions of C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »