Kolkata Court September 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Cal)112,[1989]176ITR473(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III, Calcutta, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1972-73 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 40(c) and Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in holding that an expenditure incurred by the assessee-company in respect of its employee-directors did not fall for consideration under the latter Section for the purpose of determining the portion of such expenditure which could be disallowed in computing the profits and gains of the assessee's business ?'2. The facts of this case are in a narrow compass. The assessee-company had four directors who were also employees of the assessee-company. In the relevant previous year, they were paid salary and various perquisites. The assessee-company felt that Section 40A(5) ...
Atmaram Kanoria Vs. R.H. Wright and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT285(HC)
L.M. Ghosh, J.1. Heard the substance of the matter involved in this suit out of which this award arisen is very short, there has been some complexity and swelling of the record because of the manner in which the case conducted on behalf of the parties and the manner in which the Courts below addressed themselves to the issues involved.2. Mr. Atmaram Kanoria, the defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 73 of 1976, out of which the present appeal arises, had filed Title Suit No. 136 of 1974 for ejectment against the plaintiff in the present Suit. That Suit was decreed ex parte against the present plaintiff, Mr. R. H. Wright. Then on 26.4.76, Mr. R. H. Wright filed Title Suit No. 73 of 1976 before the 2nd Subordinate Judge, Alipore, against Mr. Atmaram Kanoria and two others. Balai Chandra Law and Sugan Chand Saraogi were those two others. The plaintiff, Mr. R. H. Wright, prayed for the following reliefs : for a declaration that the plaintiff was a tenant in respect of the Suit premises, for de...
Smt. Debi Rani Paul and ors. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1988
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT157(HC),1999(1)CHN214
P.K. Samanta, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment and preliminary decree passed in a partition suit. The subject matter of the Instant partition suit is the premises No. 14C, Sambhubabu Lane, Calcutta 14 which is a three storied building comprising a total area more or less 1 cottah 9 chitaks 11 sq. ft. In this appeal respective shares of the parties as declared by the trial court have not been disputed. It has been declared that the plaintiffs are the owners of 7/9th share, the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 have 1/9th share jointly and the defendant No. 2 is the owner of 1/9th share in the suit premises.2. The facts relevant for the present purpose are as follows :--The common ancestor of the parties was one Dr. Jono Ranjan Paul. He died leaving behind his six sons namely Satlsh Chandra Paul, Kiron Chandra Paul, Biren Paul, Nilratan Paul, Nirmal Paul and Bimal Chandra Paul. Said Kiron Chandra Paul died leaving behind his three sons namely Banwarilal Paul, Barid Baran ...
Hongkong Bank and Shanghai Banking Corporation Vs. the Additional Chie ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1988
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT138(HC)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 24th May, 1988 issued by the Inspector, Shops & Establishments Directorate, Government of West Bengal Calcutta. The said notice inter alia provides that in course of inspection on 22.5.88 at 11-00 A.M. at commercial establishment of the Hong Kong Bank located at 31, B.B.D. Bag (South) Calcutta-1 under Hare Street Police Station, the Inspector detected the following deviations from/infringement of Sections 5(1)(9) and 17(1) and Rules 48 of the West Bengal Shops & Establishment Act, 1963 and West Bengal Shops & Establishment Rules, 1964 respectively by rendering service to customers on a full closing day i.e. on Sunday dated 22.5.88 at about 11-00 A.M. by automatic machine and by not producing the Visit Book on demand. It was also mentioned in the said notice that necessary action under Section 21(1) of the West Bengal Shops & Establishment Act, 1963 and Rule 51 of the West Bengal Shops & Establish...
Piari Mohan Kapoor Vs. Sudhindra Nath Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT25(HC),93CWN597
S.K. Mookherjee, J.1. The present Second Appeal arises out of a Suit for eviction and is directed against a Judgment and Decree, dated 31st of August, 1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 433 of 1982, reversing, on Appeal, those, dated 27th of March, 1982, passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Alipore in Title Suit passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 369 of 1976. The Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff's Suit for eviction in its entirety but the Lower Appellate Court, by its aforesaid Judgment of reversal, decreed the Suit under Section 13(1) (h) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The tenant-defendant is the appellant before me. The landlord-respondent No. 1 has preferred a Cross-objection from the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court seeking a decree also on the ground of reasonable requirement.2. Apart from the tenant-defendant, his brother also has been impleaded in th...
Gunendra Kumar Das Vs. Dura Steamship Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal398
ORDERSachi Kanta Hazari, J. 1. This is an application under Order 7. Rule 11 of the Civil P.C. filed by the defendant No. 2, inter alia, praying for and order that the suit be dismissed against the defendant No. 2 and for other reliefs. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate for the defendant. No. 3 refers to paragraph 3 of the plaint which' is as follows : 'The defendant No. 2 at all material times acted as the Steamer Agent of the defendant No. l in Calcutta and looked after the interest of the defendant No. 1, inter alia, in the matter of booking of freight and on going ship Chandlers etc. at the Port of Calcutta in respect of the Vessels under the ownership and/or Charter of the defendant No. 1.'Mr. Mitra in paragraph 18 refers as follows :'The plaintiff states that the defendant No, 2 has been made a party herein so that the issues involved herein may be adjudicated in its presence and no relief is claimed as against the defendant No. 2.'It is submitted by Mr. Mitra that the plaintiff in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›