Kolkata Court May 1988 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.
Ajit Kumar Chakraborty and ors. Vs. Serampore Municipality
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT154(HC),93CWN45
Sankar Bhattacharyya, J.1. The petitioners in this Rule are co-owners of premises No. 155, Netaji Subhas Avenue, Serampore. Sometime in 1981, they submitted to the Serampore Municipality for sanction a plan for carrying out certain additions and alterations in respect of the said building and the plan was duly sanctioned.2. In September, 1981, however, the chairman of the Municipality informed petitioner No. 1 in writing that an enquiry would be held in connection with the building plan sanctioned by the Municipality. Accordingly, an enquiry was held and the report submitted disclosed certain deviations from the sanctioned plan.3. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 received a letter from the Chairman of the Municipality asking him to explain why certain portions of the building, as mentioned in the letter, would not be demolished. Pursuant to the said letter, petitioner No. 1 sent an explanation raising certain objections therein but, ignoring the explanation, a complaint under Section 501 o...
Mst. Nurnahar Bewa and anr. Vs. Rabindra Nath Dev and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Cal358,(1988)2CALLT32(HC),92CWN1110
G.N. Ray, J.1. This RevisionalApplication has been referred to a larger Bench by a Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sen (as his Lordship then was) for consideration by the larger Bench the two points raised by their Lordships in the Division Bench : --(1) Whether by invoking the provision of Section 141 of the Code, an application under Order 9, Rule 4 or Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code can be made for setting aside an order of dismissal for default of an application under Rules 4, 9 or 13 of Order 9 of the Code? (2) When such an application is maintainable, what would be the limitation for such an application? 2. The revisional application was made under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. by the petitioner Mst. Nurnahar Bewa and another against Rabindra Nath Deb and others, inter alia, challenging Order No. 40 dt. 9th July, 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in Miscellaneous Case No. 55 of 1982.3. The short fact relevant for appreciating the ...
Tilokram Ghosh and ors. Vs. Smt. Gita Rani Sadhukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal254,(1989)1CALLT54(HC)
Pratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. The facts of this appeal are shortly as follows : --On 9-10-1953, a deed of Partnership was executed amongst the defendant 5 Monoranjan Banerjee, the defendant 6 Gopika Ranjan Banerjee, the defendant 7 Sachidananda Banerjee as well as one Harihar Mal and one Sibram Ghosh, since deceased and the appellant 1. The business carried on by the firm was for exhibiting cinematographic films under the name and style of 'Surasree Cinema'. The cinema house, one of the assets of the firm, was constructed on a plot of land situate in the district of Howrah. The said plot of land was purchased by the aforesaid six partners and was treates as one of the assets of the said firm. It was an unregistered partnership and the partners had shares therm as set out in the said deed. Subsequently Harihar Mall sold his share and the shares of the partners in the firm increased as set out in para 7 of the plaint. This deed of partnership contained an arbitration clause for resolving the ...
State of West Bengal Vs. Sree Bramha Oil Mills and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT117(HC)
A.C. Sengupta, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the Order, dated 11.3.88 passed by the learned Collector in respect of certain goods that were seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of the E. C. Act in relation thereto. The learned Collector in a proceeding Under Section 6A of the E. C. Act, 1.955, hereinafter to be described as the Act, held that the seized articles are to be released to the opposite parties, that is to say, the present respondents, from whom the goods were seized. Being aggrieved by the Order, the State of West Bengal has preferred this revisional application. The only point on which this matter is to be disputed of, is whether the Collector had any power to release the goods, so seized in exercised his power under Section 6A in a proceeding under Section 6A of the Act.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents argued before us that the Collector had ample power to release the goods in a proceeding under Section 6A of the Act. ...
Haranath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT304(HC)
J.N. Hore, J.1. This is an application under Section 401, read With, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 2396/78 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol, under Section 148/149/323/354-380 of the Indian Penal Code and for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated May 25, 1983 rejecting the petitioners' prayer for discharge.2. Complainant Shibarani Kabiraj filed a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Asansol on 3.12.78 alleging, inter alia, that she was owner and in possession of a portion of premises No. 67 (old 70) Netaji Subhas Road, Asansol, by virtue of a sale deed executed in favour of her husband and registered on August 7, 1971. It was further alleged that the petitioners who had no manner of right, title, interest and possession in respect of the disputed premises collected a number of roughs and rowdies armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into the disputed premises, a...
income-tax Officer Vs. Mrs. Sunita Kumar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD497(Kol.)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order dated 7-10-1986 of the CIT(A) relating to the assessment year 1980-81 on the following grounds: 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the carried forward losses in 'Horse Racing' under the head 'Other sources' relating to the assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80 against short-term capital gains of Rs. 99,328 and long-term capital gains of Rs. 2,167 arising out of sale of race horses during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1980-81, in contravention of the provisions of Section 74A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have confirmed the decision of the Income-tax Officer in not allowing the setting off of the carried forward loss in 'Horse Racing' under the head 'Other source...
Seahorse Shipping and Shipmanagement Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Board ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal212
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. M/s. Seahorse Shipping and Shipmanagement Private Limned, the petitioner 1 herein, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on business as a Steamer Agent in the Port of Calcutta and acts as Steamer Agents of various parties including Ceylon Shipping Corporation, a company incorporated in Sri Lanka.2. The Ceylon Shipping Corporation carries on business as shipowners and carriers of goods. The goods which are destined for delivery in India are picked up by Ceylon Shipping Corporation from various Ports and are unloaded at Colombo. From Colombo the goods are transhipped to vessels operated by Ceylon Shipping Lines, a subsidiary of Ceylon Shipping Corporation, which operates a feeder service between Colombo and the Indian Ports. Delivery of cargo at Indian Ports are given on the basis of production of Bills of Lading issued by the Ceylon Shipping Corporation.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner 1, M/s. Seahorse Shi...
Dakhina Ranjan Hore Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT190(HC)
Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J.1. In the present Rule the complainant petitioner impugns in revision an order, dated 18.5.87 whereby the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore discharged the accused opposite parties Nos.. 1 to 9 of a charge under Section 506 I.P.C. in C.R. Case No. 319/83 previously numbered as G.R. 546/80.2. Pursuant to a First Information Report lodged at Tarakeswar Police Station by the petitioner who was a J.L.R.O. of Pursurah at Champadanga over an incident that took place on 16,6.80, police registered Tarakeswar Police Station Case No. 14, dated 17.6.80 and on 9.2.82 submitted a report under Section 173 Cr. P.C, disclosing commission of non-cognizable offence by the accused opposite parties under Section 506 I.P.C. Strangely enough, without allowing the case to proceed as a case instituted on the basis of a complaint by the investigating police officer, the accused opposite parties were neither proceeded with nor any order was passed on the basis of t...
Md. Ibrahim Hazi Mollah Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC105
Sudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and is a manufacturer and exporter of woollen carpets.2. For manufacturing carpets the petitioner requires various raw materials like woollen yarn, cotton yarn, jute yarn, dyes and chemicals, which the petitioner purchases from the market on payment of central excise duty in accordance with the Central Excises and Salt Act.3. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has claimed drawbacks in respect of the goods exported for the period from 1973 to 1977 after having allegedly complied with Rule 11 of the Drawback Rules, 1971. The number of claims so made is 45 but in spite of repeated reminders the payment in respect thereof amounting to Rs. 66,438.35 parse is yet to be made by the respondents.4. Being aggrieved the petitioner has come up for redress before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.5. According to the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition 26 claims ...
Statesman Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD589(Kol.)
1. These two appeals are taken together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a limited company and derives income from publication of an English daily 'The Statesman' and from allied publications. The assessee is in appeal against the consolidated order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The point did not arise before the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner while he was completing the assessments. However, the brief facts relevant for these appeals are that the assessee-company, as a settlor, created two irrevocable trusts on llth September, 1979 and 12th November, 1979. The first trust was created for providing financial assistance to the employees of the settlor and their families a.nd dependents for their education, medical facilities, sports, games, cultural and other activities and their welfare generally. The second trust was created for the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »