Kolkata Court July 1988 Judgments
Umapada Dutta Vs. Eastern Railway
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT293(HC)
Mohitosh Majumdar, J.1. The writ petition is directed against an order as contained in Annexure B to the writ application. Annexure B to the writ application is quoted below :'No. 87/Sec(E)/DB/2New Delhi, 10/8/87Reference your letter on the above noted subject.The case of alteration of date of birth of SI/RPF Umapada Dutta has been examined. The DG/RPF agrees with the appreciation contained in para 2 of your letter and there is no case for alteration of his date of birth.The C.S.R. of the abovenamed employee is returned herewith. Please acknowledge receipt'.2. During the pendency of the writ application Sri Sultan Singh, Director General, RPF, sent a telegram which is quoted below :Government of IndiaMinistry of Railways(Railway Board)XXR Wireless/Post Cop.Issued on 6/6/88 Raja SreedharanChief Security Commissioner/RPFEastern RailwayCalcutta.No. 87/Sec(E)/DB/2(g) Refer Your D.D. No. SC 57 1329-L, dated 2-6-88 Regarding Alteration of Date of Birth of S.L. (Now IPF) Sri Umapada Dutta of ...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Bhowmik Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1988
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC173
Amal Kumar Chatterjee, J.1. A charge has been framed against the petitioner by a learned Judge, Calcutta, 3rd Special Court, on three counts: under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under Section 136(1) of the Customs Act and under Section 477A of the IPC.2. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government, while under Section 137 of the Customs Acts, no court can take cognizance of any offence under Section 136 of this Act except with the previous sanction of the appropriate authority who is the Collector of Customs in this case. Thus it has been argued that the petitioner could not be charged under these two sections except with previous sanction of the appropriate authority for taking cogniznace and it has been pointe...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Nevatia Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC422,1988(38)ELT606(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. The question which calls for determination in this case is when was the importation of subject goods complete. The answer to this question will determine whether the subject goods imported by the petitioner are liable to any duty or not.2. The facts of this case shortly stated are that the petitioner purchased 252 Metric Tons of Dun Peas which arrived at the Port of Calcutta on board M.V. Peters if on or about 27th January, 1987 and discharge of the cargo was completed by 30th January, 1987. The vessel entered the territorial waters of India on 27th January, 1987. The said goods were OGL items and no Customs duty were payable. The said vessel contained similar other goods. On 4th February, 1987, a notification was issued by the Customs Authorities being Notification No. 40/87 which has imposed 25% ad valorem duty on importation Dun Peas.3. Since the said goods were OGL items and no Customs duty was payable before the said notification came into force, the questio...
Tag this Judgment!Diwan Brothers and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 1989(40)ELT316(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In view of the judgment delivered by me today in Matter No. 382 of 1987 intituted Dinesh Kumar Neotia v. The Collector of Customs and Ors. this application is allowed. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had to collect the goods upon payment of duties to save demurrage and other charges and a sum of Rs. 1,65,340.74 has been paid by way of customs duty. The petitioner has also paid demurrage charges. Since the application succeeds the respondents must refund the said-sum of Rs. 1,65,340.74 to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. I am, however, not inclined to award any interest having regard to the fact that the duty was collected on the interpretation of the Notification dated 4th February, 1987. In default of refund within the time specified above, the said sum of Rs. 1,65,340.74 will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of Judgment till the date of refund. However, the customs authorities shall issue wharf ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Prasad Dutta Vs. Collector of C.E. (Gold) Cell
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC175,1989(21)LC223(Calcutta),1989(41)ELT17(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. The application is directed against the order dated 24th April, 1986 of the Tribunal rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to redeem offending gold on payment of redemption fine. The facts leading to this application are stated hereinafter.2. The first petitioner carries on business, inter alia of husking mill building materials at Dwarhatta in the district of Hooghly, West Bengal. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The father of the first petitioner carried on business in gold at Sonapatti, Burrabazar, Calcutta. But the first petitioner is stated to have never dealt in gold. The father of the first petitioner died in the year 1930 when the first petitioner was only 2 years old. Before his death, the father of the first petitioner kept some gold bars with his mother. The first petitioner occasionally lends money to relatives against deposit of gold ornaments for which the first petitioner maintained a separate account. In or about 1973...
Tag this Judgment!Swapna Ghosh Vs. Sadananda Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal1,93CWN231
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This decree for dissolution of marriage made by the Additional District Judge in a Divorce Suit under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, has come, as it must, before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act and we confirm the same as we are satisfied that the materials on record would warrant such confirmation. But the manner in which the trial Judge has decided the issues involved has not earned our satisfaction and we would accordingly like to draw the attention of the learned Judge to the fact that trial of matrimonial causes, even if undefended as the present one, is a matter, not of easy insouciance, but of most anxious advertence.2. I have, however, my own doubts as to whether the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act requiring confirmation of the decree of the trial court by the High Court should any longer be retained. A decree for dissolution of marriage among the Hind us, Buddhists, Sikhs anJ Jains under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, am...
Tag this Judgment!Ashim Ganguly Vs. Indian Oxygen Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal150,[1991]71CompCas241(Cal),93CWN247
Ajit Kumar Nayak, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and is directed against the order dt. 14-8-87, passed by the Second Assistant District Judge, Alipore in T. S. No. 37/87 of that Court, setting aside an order of injunction granted ex parte in favour of the appellant, restraining the respondent 1, Indian Oxygen Company Ltd. from enforcing the bank guarantees furnished on behalf of he appellant in favour of the respondent company.2. The short question we are called upon to answer in this Misc. Appeal is whether in the ordinary course of business, Court should interfere by way of injunction to prevent the beneficiary of a bank guarantee from enforcing the same. We feel no hesitation to say and hold in the negative that Court should seldom do it, unless there is a serious dispute and a very good prima facie case of fraud and special equities in the form of preventing irretrievable injustice between the parties.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff as proprietor and ca...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. Barbara Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal165,93CWN256
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. A husband filed an application under Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, against his wife for an order for the return of their minor daughter, then aged about 2 1/2 years, to his custody on the allegation that the child 'was taken away from his lawful custody' by the wife and the application having been dismissed, the husband has preferred this appeal.2. However anachronistic it may appear to be, even to-day in India, proclaimed to be 'Secular' in lis National Charter and mandated thereby almost four decades ago to secure to all its citizens a Uniform Civil Code, 'religion' is still being allowed to have a dominant and decisive role even in secular matters relating to law and its administration and the rights and status of a person in matters relating to marriage, succession, guardianship and the like still depend on the religion he would belong to. The husband here is a Hindu, the wife a Christian and they were married under the Special Marriage Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Khetwat Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: 1991LC698(Calcutta),1989(41)ELT10(Cal)
Baboo Lall Jain, J.1. The question that arises in this application is as to the interpretation of a notification bearing No. 155/86-Cus., dated 1st March, 1986. The relevant portion thereof is set out hereunder : .'Exemption to parts imported for the purpose of setting up, for the assembly or manufacture of specified ankles falling under Chapter 84 or 85. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Nos. 94/86 Customs and 95/86Customs both dated 17th February, 1986. The Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts parts required for the purpose of initial setting up, or for the assembly or manufacture, of any Article specified in Column (2) of the Table hereto annexed, when imported into India and proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Lal Saraf Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1988
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT216(Cal)
Baboo Lal Jain, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. An order was passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta on the 19th June, 1987, by which the said Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim of the petitioner for refund of customs duty of a sum of Rs. 88,821.16 P. for survey shortage of 9246 kgs. Against the consignment in question. The petitioner went in appeal against the said order of the Collector of Customs - Mr. C.K. Gopalakrishnan, Collector of Customs (Appeals) made an order bearing No. Cal. Cus. 1955/87, dated 18-9-1987. By the said order the said Collector of Customs (Appeals) observed as follows :'Considering the fact that a protracted correspondence between the department and the claimant had ensued, I would not like to remand the matter with a broad direction but would expect the Customs House to collect the original records and establish that there exists a case for granting refund or not. The Customs House may ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »