Kolkata Court May 1988 Judgments
In Re: Smt. Sikha Dutta and Sri Prosanta Kumar Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT115(HC)
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. These two revisional applications are directed against Order No. 12, dated February 2, 1988 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 11 of 1987 disposing of an application filed under Sections 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ('Act' for short). By the impugned order the learned Judge directed the tenant/defendant to pay arrear municipal taxes and arrear rents amounting to Rs. 17,920 and Rs. 4,380 respectively, together with interest thereon @ 81/2 %, in ten equal monthly instalments. One of these applications has been filed by the plaintiff/land-lord whose grievance is that the calculation of arrear rents is wrong while the grievance of the defendant, who is the petitioner in the other revisional application, is that the learned Judge erred in directing her to pay arrear municipal taxes.2. It is not disputed that the tenancy is governed by a written agreement, dated September 25, 1980. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Chapalabala Dutta Vs. Arati De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-31-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT330(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present devisional application has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging Order No. 201, dated 16.2.87 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 95 of 1978. By the impugned Order the learned Munsif has disposed of the application filed by Sm. Chapalabala Dutta, wife of defendant No. 1 since deceased, under Sections 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned Munsif has found that the defendant No. 1 during his life time filed an application under Section 17(2) of the said Act and the said application was rejected by Order No. 24, dated.13.7.72. From the record it further transpired before the learned Munsif that by Order No. 112, dated 25.5.79 the defence against delivery of possession was struck out and being aggrieved by the said Order the defendant No. 1 filed a revisional application being C.R. No. 3138 of 1979. During the pendency of the said case the defendant No. 1 died leaving behind hi...
Tag this Judgment!Aditya NaraIn Roy and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: [1990]183ITR175(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the valuation of the Valuation Officer, Unit III, made under Section 16A(5) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the immovable property being premises No. 129, Park Street, Calcutta, for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1984-85.2. Shortly stated, the facts are that, in the year 1955, the premises at No. 129, Park Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the 'said premises'), was let out on lease for a period of 25 years to one Mr. P. A. Basil, since deceased, at a rent of Rs. 100 per month. The said Mr. Basil, since deceased, and/or his legal heirs did not vacate the said premises on the expiry of the lease. The petitioners filed a suit in the year 1980 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for recovery of possession of the said premises. During the pendency of the said suit, Messrs. Susam Properties Pvt. Ltd. agreed to take the said premises on lease for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC375,1988(36)ELT435(Cal)
Sudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, the Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. is a Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of the petitioner No. 1 Company.2. At all material times the petitioner No. 1 carried on and still carries on bunsiness of manufacturing and selling Aluminium and its allied products including Aluminium Sheets and Aluminium Container Sheets.3. For the purpose of carrying on the said business the petitioner No. 1 owns and runs factories and/or plants at Belur (West Bengal), Hirakud (Orissa), Alupuram (Kerala), Belgaum (Karnataka), Kalwa (Maharashtra) and Taloja (Maharashtra).4. At all material times Aluminium and its allied products including Aluminium Sheets and Aluminium Container Sheets as specified in Tariff Item 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were and still are excisable commodities.5. For the purpose of obtaining benefit of Rules 13 and 14 of the Central Excise Rules,...
Tag this Judgment!Sankari Prosad Sarkar Vs. Ranjit Sankar Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT238(HC)
Pabitra Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the appellate Court affirming that passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Alipore, dated 19.3.86 in T.S. No. 143 of 1980 of the said Court. The plaintiff-respondent Ranjit Sankar Chowdhury filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-appellant Sri Sankari Prosad Sarkar in respect of a flat being flat No. 102 at 11 1-B, Ekdalia Place, Calcutta on the allegations inter alia that the defendant came to occupy the said flat as a licensee in September 1976 for a period of 19 months and thereafter the said licence was extended till December 1978. During the said period the plaintiff received licence fees from the defendant on four occasions and granted receipts for the same. As the defendant refused to vacate the disputed flat inspite of repeated demands, the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit after revoking the licence by a, notice. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement in which he claimed t...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Mohuragang Gulma Tea Estate and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT167(HC)
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. The rules of the High Court at Calcutta has special significance in regard to the procedural aspect for the purpose of due administration of justice. It has stood the test of time and the powers of the High Court to frame the rules have been preserved under the Letters Patent which is saved by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that from time to time, the High Court by resolutions adopted rules of the Original Side which are also being saved by the Letters Patent and Code of Civil Procedure and have binding effect in regard to the suits instituted in the Original Side of this Court and certain other matters related thereto.2. The matter in issue in this appeal is indeed an interesting one, as also important since it involves question in regard to the interpretation of these rules.3. Chapter XIII of the Original Side Rules of this Court provide a special procedure by way of an originating summons which had its origin in English Rules of Su...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Priyanka Overseas (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1988
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC206,1991LC57(Calcutta),1989(41)ELT195(Cal)
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed on 19th April, 1988 whereby the learned Trial Judge allowed the Writ Petition and made the Rule absolute. The learned Judge directed as follows: -'In the result, the rule is made absolute. The Writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents to treat the palm kernel is an item different and distinct from palm seed and the same should be treated under O.G.L. and is covered under Item No. 1, Appendix 6 of the Import Policy of 1985-88 and could import the same under O.G.L. subject to condition of Item 1 of Appendix 6. Further the respondents are directed to clear the goods immediately which was imported pursuant to the contract dated 10-6-1987 and further the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to import the goods already arrive or is likely to be arrived pursuant to the contract dated 10-6-1987. The goods should be allowed to be cleared on payment of such duties as so levia...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanta Kumar Seth and ors. Vs. Special Officer and Secretary, Board ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT224(HC)
Shamsuddin Ahmed, J.1. In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the validity of Section 4E of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (inserted by the West Bengal Land ReformsAmended Act, 1981) is under challenge.2. Writ petitioners' case in short is that Smt. Binapani Pal and Smt. Srilata Pal were the owners of; 2.53 acres of land in different plots described in paragraph 2 of the writ petition in Mouza Salap, J.L. No. 52, P.S. Domjur, Dist. Howrah. They purchased these lands in the year 1961-62 and since then using the land for non-agriculture purpose. They have divided the land into small plots for residential and commercial purpose. The area concerned has developed into a residential and commercial area. At times the lands in question were used as kitchen garden and vegetables were sometimes grown for domestic use. Out of these lands petitioners purchased several portions by registered deeds on different dates as narrated in paragraph 4 of the writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Thakur Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1477
J.N. Hore, J.1. Rajesh Thakur, the appellant before us, was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Sakhichand Rajak and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months more.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:Sakhichand Rajak (the deceased) was a resident of Budha Chamantalao, Asansol, P.S. Asansol, District Burdwan. The appellant Rajesh Thakur also lives in the same locality.3. Paresh Thakur and appellant Rajesh Thakur had quarrel with the complainant party for a long time and on 26-1-83 Paresh assaulted Lakshman Rajak, father of the deceased. Lakshman lodged a diary with the local police station over the said incident and at this the appellant became very angry.4. On 30-1-83 at about 3-30 P.M. complainant Munna Rajak (PW 1) who is a washerman by profession was going on a bicycle with washed clothes for delivery to Hotel Sassi...
Tag this Judgment!Satyam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Improvement Trus ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal263,93CWN603
ORDERPrabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the legality and validity of the acquisition proceedings -initiated in respect of No. 9B, Bechulal Road, Calcutta -- 14 has been challenged by the petitioner Satyam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The challenge in subsistance is that there has been undue and unexplained delay on the part of the Calcutta Improvement Trust the respondent No. 1 and also Land Acquisition Collector the respondent No. 4 in proceeding with the acquisition proceedings.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) registered under West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 and consist of about 85 members belonging to the low and middle income group, who do not own any residential accommodation in the town of Calcutta. The petitioner No. 2 is a member of the said society. The society was formed for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to its members by construc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »