Kolkata Court June 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.
Eastern Spinning Mills and Indus. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1988
Reported in: 1989(21)LC260(Calcutta),1988(37)ELT14(Cal)
Baboo Lall Jain, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner No. 1 Eastern Spinning Mills & Industries Limited imported certain goods into India which were of the description as mentioned in the Notification No. 216-Cus dated 1st November, 1980. A copy of the said Notification Is Annexure-A to the petition. By the said notification the Union of India in exercise of Its powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, exempted the goods specified in the Table forming part of the said Notification and falling within Chapter 56 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (Act No. 51 of 1975), when imported into India from whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said first schedule was issued by the Central Government being Notification No. 276/82-Customs whereby the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (i) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 and in supers...
Smt. Kusum Kumari Mal and ors. Vs. Calcutta State Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT5(HC)
Ajit Kumar Nayak, J.1. These Wo appeals, one by the claimant |petitioners and the other by the objector, Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation), are directed against the judgment and order, dated 28th May, 1982, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Midnapore in J. Misc. Case No. 10 of 1980, awarding compensation of Rs. 101304 to the claimant/petitioners, the wife and children of the deceased and further directing payment of interest on failure to pay such sum within a period of two months from the date of award.2. The case of the claimant|petitioners, viz., the wife and four sons and two daughters of the deceased, late Sri Chittaranjan Mai was that on the fateful day, i.e., on 6th August, 1979 late Sri Mal was travelling by a Calcutta bound State Transport Corporation Bus Mo. W.B.S. 1805 on N.H. 6, the National High Way, on 6th August, 1979, at about 11-30 a.m., the said bus while being driven at a very high speed an...
Borhat Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD166(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20-10-1986 passed by the CIT (A).2. In the course of assessment proceeding's for the assessment year 1981-82 it was found by the ITO that the assessee did not file statement of advance tax nor paid advance tax during the relevant accounting year. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under Section. 273(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A notice under Section. 274 read with Section 273 was accordingly issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice served upon it the assessee filed its reply dated 30th September, 1982. It was pointed out by the assessee, a non-resident company, that income accruing to it in India during 1980 comprised of interest due from the bank on short-term deposit, interest due from Tata Finlay Ltd. and dividends received from Tata Finlay Ltd. It was further stated1that, interest and dividends represented income from which tax was required to be deducted a...
Jitendra Nath Raptan and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1988
Reported in: (1988)2CALLT196(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. The order passed by the Revenue Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer dated February 2/13, 1980 after remand of this case from this Court has been challenged for the second time in the instant writ petition.2. By the said order the Revenue Officer after narrating the short history of this case in brief came to the conclusion that the suit land originally belonged to ex-intermediary, Sourendra, Sovendra, Somendra and Subhas Majumdar, all sons of Surendra Mohan Majumdar, who held and possessed land in excess of the ceiling as per provision of Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, on the date of coming into force of the said Act. It further appears from the order-sheet that each of them transferred 6.18 acres of agricultural land and some few areas of non agricultural land within the prohibited period for which a proceeding under Section 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act has been started and after a proper enquiry ...
Madanlal Agarwalla Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1988
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas237(Cal),93CWN16,1989(19)ECC156
Khastgir, J. 1. This revisional application has been moved for issuance of rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the order complained of should not be set aside and/or quashed. Mr. Justice P. C. Borooah and A. M. Pal JJ. issued a rule on September 5, 1983. The petitioner, Madanlal Agarwalla, alias Madanlal Agarwal, was aggrieved inasmuch as the complaint has been filed against him in his capacity as a person in charge of Messrs Prabhudayal Sitaram of 67/47, Strand Road, Calcutta. The nature of the complaint against him was that he, being the person in charge and a partner of Messrs Prabhudayal Sitaram of 67/47, Strand Road, Calcutta, violated the provisions of para 4 of the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977, by holding the stock of 1,408 qtls., 23 kgs. of edible oil in excess of the prescribed limit of 800 qtls. for a wholesaler. The petitioner contended that the contravention was made by Prabhudayal Sitaram, a partnership firm, o...
Suresh Kumar Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC348,1989(39)ELT248(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner claims for refund from the Port Trust authorities for having paid demurrage charges for delay in taking delivery of the goods in spite of the Wharf Rent Exemption Certificate issued by the Customs authorities.2. The facts of the case are shortly stated as under:The petitioner carries on business of, inter alia, manufacture of shoddy woollen goods under the name and style of Messrs National Carpet Industries, G.T. Road, Dhariwal, Punjab as a sole proprietor thereof. The said concern of the petitioner is a small scale industrial unit duly registered as such with the Government of Punjab. Under the Import Policy of the Government of India, issued from time to time, several items are importable under the Open General Licence Scheme of the respective Import Policies. During the Policy period April, 1984 to March, 1985 woollen rags containing more than 50% wool content by weight were importable...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›