Kolkata Court November 1989 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.
Bhagawan Das Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC240
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. Bhagawan Das the petitioner herein was convicted and sentenced under Section 57(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 by a learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Calcutta. Aggrieved thereby he preferred an appeal in the City Sessions Court, which was admitted and registered as Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1988. On November 3, 1989, when the appeal was taken up for hearing by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court no one appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of the repeated calls and as such the learned Judge dismissed the appeal for default. A petition was thereafter filed by the appellant for recalling the above order dated November 3, 1989 and the ground that was canvassed in support of the petition was that due to circumstances beyond control, the appellant's learned Advocate could not be present when the appeal was taken up for hearing and was dismissed for default After hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned Publ...
Farhat Sheikh Vs. Escman Metalo Chemical Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas88(Cal)
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. 1. The relief as envisaged under Section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, is discretionary in nature. This discretion, however, cannot be termed to be an uncontrolled one but can only be exercised in accordance with the known principles of justice, equity and fairplay and as such refusal to interfere in terms of the provisions of Section 155 can only be had where the facts do not justify the same. In other words, the law court while considering the matter for rectification within the meaning of Section 155 of the Act ought always to consider the facts and circumstances of each matter and on the basis thereof, come to its conclusion. 2. At this juncture, however, it would be convenient to briefly narrate the facts. The petitioner admittedly was the recorded shareholder of 975 equity shares of Rs. 100 each fully paid up and the annual return filed by the company up to June, 1984, records the petitioner's name as the registered shareholder of 975 equity shares of...
Sabarak HossaIn Vs. Sahida Khatun
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT170(HC)
Amarabha Sengupta, J.1. In this application styled as one under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. an order dated 29.2.88 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Alipore in Cr. Revision No. 180/87 and affirming an order dated 30.5.87 passed by a Judicial Magistrate on a petition of the petitioner relating to a matter of maintenance under section. 125 of the Cr. P.C. is challenged.2. The relevant facts are as follows :The petitioner Sabarak Hossain was the husband of the Opposite Party Sahida Khatun. Some children had also been born of the wedlock. In May, 1983 the Opposite Party obtained as against the petitioner an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. at the rate of Rs. 100 per month for herself and at the rate of Rs. 50 per month for the children. She had, however, been divorced by the petitioner before the passing of the order of maintenance. The order of maintenance was upheld by the High Court on 11.10.85 subject to some variation of the order in relation to a marrie...
Bijay Singh Surana and Others Vs. First Land Acquisition Collector for ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal246
ORDER1. In this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have questioned the validity of a Notification dated 28-2-1985 issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as LA Act) and a Declaration dated 18-3-1987 made under S. 6 of the LA Act. The Notification and the Declaration are in respect of eastern portion of ground floor along with mezzanine floor at premises No. 7/1-D Lindsay Street, Calcutta.2. I will briefly refer to the facts. The petitioners are the trustees of Seth Mannalal Surana Memorial Trust. The trust is the owner of the land and building situate at premises No. 7/1-D, Lindsay Street, Calcutta. The building is 6 storeyed. The entire building has been leased out by the Truest to Smt. Jiwani Kumari Parakh who has been impleaded as respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 has let out a substantial portion of the building to a number of tenants. There are a number of shops in the ground floor of the building. One...
Manick Chandra Sardar and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT45(HC)
Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J.1. The petitioners were appointed in different capacities on different dates on fix consolidated pay under the respondents in the Sandeshkhali-I Development Block. The petitioner No. 1, a Schedule Tribe, was appointed night-guard in 1980 at a consolidated pay of Rs. 250/- per month; the petitioner No. 2 was appointed an instructor in 1980 at a consolidated pay of Rs. 350/- per month and the petitioner No. 3 was appointed as a demonstrator at a consolidated pay of Rs. 300/- per month. There is no break in services of any of the petitioners since 22nd April, 1981 and on this count they claim to have acquired the status of permanent employees in accordance with the Memorandum No. 6059-F dated 25th June, 1979 issued by the Finance Department (Audit Branch), Government of West Bengal. It is their further case that they rendered services till the month of June 1985 when suddenly the petitioner No. 2 by Memo dated 9th July, 1985 was asked to hand over the charge of th...
Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Exc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC251
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This writ application is directed against the refusal of the respondents to refund the amount allegedly collected unlawfully from the first petitioner the Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd. since renamed as Indian Rayon & Industries, Ltd. (Hereinafter, referred to as 'the Company'). The said Company is engaged in the business of, inter alia, manufacturing Electrical Insulators at its factory situated at Rishra in the State of West Bengal. The said business is carried on by the Company under the name and style of 'JAYASHREE INSULATORS'. The said Insulators are of Porcelain and are sold by the Company with or without metal fittings. The said Insulators are used for transmission and distribution of electrical energy. 2. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the said Company and has filed the writ petition for violation of his fundamental rights as a shareholder of the said Company. 3. In the writ application the petitioners have challenged certain directions and find...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat BajoriA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)6
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The following question of law has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee had suffered a long-term capital loss of Rs. 28,215 on account of the assignment and exchange of promissory note to M/s. Shyamnagar Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. against the allotment of shares of the face value of Rs. 9,15,900 by the said company to the assessee ?'2. The assessment year involved in this reference is the asst. yr. 1975-76, for which the relevant period of account is the period ending on 19th April, 1975.The facts of the case found by the Tribunal, as stated in the statement of case are as under.The assessee-lady (since deceased) was being assessed as individual. Her accounting period for the asst. yr. 1975-76 ended on the 19th April, 1975. She has been keeping books of account according to which net profit worked out...
National thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Hind Galvanizing and Engin ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal421
ORDERBimal Chandra Basak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 6th April, 1987, passed by the trial Court in an interlocutory application whereby the plaintiff-petitioner made the following prayers :--'(a) Injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 whether by itself or its servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from receiving any payment from the defendant No. 2 under any of the said three bank guarantees contained in Annexures A, B and C hereof or attempted to do so and from making any demand for payment thereunder; (b) Injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 from making or attempting to make any payment under the defendant No. 1 or any amount under any of the said three bank guarantees contained in Annexures, A, B and C whether in pursuance of the demand made by the defendant No. 1 by letter dated 6th March, 1987, or otherwise or at all; (c) Ad interim order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above; (d) Costs of and incidental to this application be pai...
Nody Bros. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: 1990(48)ELT514(Cal)
Baboo Lall Jain, J.1. The only point that has been urged before me is that there has been an increase in the Customs duty after the writ petitioner No. 1 entered into the contract for importation of the goods and before the same were actually imported and the bill of entry was filed. The writ petitioner drew my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a case reported in : 1983(12)ELT258(Del) (Super Traders and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.). In the said case the Delhi High Court, inter alia, held that the Government or the Legislature cannot be compelled to refrain from making any changes, during the financial year, in the matter of Import or Export, because it could be trespassing on the legislature and the administrative field, if Court were to hold that a rate of duty or tax was immutable for any particular period. In the said case the Delhi High Court inter alia held as follows :'22. Another argument against the alleged unreasonableness of the Am...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Fibre Dealers Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: [1994]205ITR441(Cal)
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to this court by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the extra payment of Rs. 7,249 made by the company to the Provident Fund authorities for not making the payment of provident fund dues in time was not in the nature of penalty and that was in the nature of compensation paid to the Government ?'2. The assessment year involved in this reference is the assessment year 1975-76, for which the relevant period of account is the financial year ending on December 31, 1974.3. The Tribunal, following the decision of this court in the case of Balrampur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 155 ITR 227, held that damages levied and payable under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, were not in the nature of penalty but in the nature of compensation ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »