Kolkata Court December 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.
Purnendu Sekhar Biring Vs. Govt. of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT1(HC)
K.M. Yusuf, J.1. The petitioner has moved this Court for quashing of the resolution adopted on 2nd June, 1988 by No. 6 Sabajput Gram Panchayat. Briefly speaking, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a brick field at Gamartalia in Sabajput in the district of Midnapore and holds registration certificates from the Government of West Bengal and he is carrying on the business of manufacturing brick for considerably long period. He has paid royalty for quarring the soil and already incurred a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the Contai Co-operative Bank Pvt. Ltd., repayment of which by usual instalment is held up because of the obstruction in his business. On 12th December, 1980 he obtained a permission from the District Engineer for plying trucks for carrying bricks. On 8th February, 1981 he obtained permission to ply trucks for carrying bricks load on the morum road from Chatradhara to Samudrapur on condition that the petitioner would have to give an undertaking for getting the...
In Re: Gautam Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT429(HC)
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, inter alia, prays for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to do their public duties in accordance with law and to forbear them from giving any effect or any further effect to the provi- sions of the West Bengal Licencing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy cement Order, 1982 to non-levy cement business.Although the matter was contested by the State but no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State.2. The short point involved in the case is as to whether the provisions of West Bengal Licencing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of levy Cement Order, 1982 are applicable in case of non-levy cement business.3. Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, inter alia, provides that the Central Government may, in appropriate cases, by, an order provide for regulating by licences; permits or otherwise the production or manufacture of any essent...
Dukhiram Sardar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT364(HC)
Dilip Kumar Basu, J.1. On 8th July, 1981, petitioner obtained this rule and interim order directing the respondents to maintain status) quo as on date as regards working of the. petitioner in the school concerned for a period of three weeks and respondents have given liberty to pray for extension of the interim order with a notice to the respondents. Subsequently, on 18th July, 1981, the interim order was extended till disposal of the rule. On 15th January, 1988, petitioner desired not to proceed against respondent No. 2, accordingly the rule was discharged so far respondent No. 8 is concerned and otherwise the rule was ready as regards service.2. Petitioner in his writ petition has contended that petitioner, at all material time, was an Assistant Teacher of Korakathi Junior Basic School. In the year 1975, Satish Chandra Naskar, an Assistant Teacher retired and in the post created by such retirement, petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and volunteered his services till...
Bhuban Mohan Bose and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ11Cal
Sengupta, J.1. The petitioners who were Directors of a Public Limited Company, Calcutta Electric Lamp Works Ltd., were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 14(1) read with Section 14A(1) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for failure to pay the contribution (employee's as well as employer's share) and administrative charges for the month of October, 1977 in contravention of Section 6 of the said Act and Paragraph 38 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Each of the petitioners was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo a further simple imprisonment for 25 days more. This conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Sessions Judge by his order dated 24th January 1986. This revisional application is directed against the said judgment and order.2. At the hearing, Mr. Dutt, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the courts below...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Heavy Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)235
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The following question of law has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the order of the ITO in not charging the interest under s. 217(1A) of the Act was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the CIT was not justified in invoking the provision of s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment year involved in this reference is the asst. yr. 1976-77. In this case, the CIT had invoked the jurisdiction under s. 263 of the IT Act for correcting an error committed by the ITO for failure to charge interest under s. 217(1A) of the Act.3. The assessees case is that the CIT was wrong in invoking the provisions of a 263. It was contended that non-charging of interest under s. 217(1A) of the Act was not a mistake. The assessee had furnished the revised estimate and had paid the tax due to the extent of Rs...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sumati Kumar Sunil Kumar.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: (1992)94CTR(Cal)221,[1992]193ITR537(Cal)
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. - The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that, in the income disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1975, the speculation loss should be set off against the other income of the assessee notwithstanding the prohibition contained in section 73(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessment years involved are 1971-72 and 1972-73 for which the relevant years of account were years ending October 28, 1970, and October 17, 1971.The facts as narrated by the Tribunal in the statement of case are as under.The respondent-assessee is Sumati Kumar Sunil Kumar, a partnership firm, the concerned assessment years being 1971-72 and 1972-73. The material facts which are common to both the years are that there was a search and seizure in the case of the assessee on June 12, 1973. The origi...
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation (No. 1) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: [1993]202ITR64(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs or any part thereof is taxable in the hands of the assessee or arisen in India ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1966-67, for which the relevant accounting period is the calendar year 1965. The assessee is a non-resident company which entered into three separate agreements dated March 12, 1964, for erecting a plant for the production of graphite and rendering services in connection therewith, Graphite India Ltd. (hereinafter described as 'the Indian company ') was to pay to Messrs. Great Lakes Carbon Corporation Rs. 14,00,000 under the agreement. The facts found by the Tribunal as stated in the statement of case are as under : The assessee is a non-resident company. Its accounting year for the assessment year 1966-67 was the calendar year 1965. Proceedings underSection ...
Sudhir Kumar Adhikari Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT365(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner who is a driver appointed by the Housing Board with effect from 12-2-75 has moved this Court for quashing the order No. 434O/24B dated 2-4-1980 granting the order of promotion of Sri Gopal Giri in the up-graded post of driver and for appointing the petitioner to the said post as he is senior to the respondent Gopal Giri.2. The petitioner states as follows :The West Bengal Housing Board by the order dated 2nd April 1980 has converted one out of six posts of driver in the basic grade of Rs. 235-435 into one of higher grade of Rs. 380^545 with effect from 1-4-1980. By the order annexure 'C the West Bengal Housing Board has appointed the Respondent No. 6 Gopal Giri to that post with effect from 1st April 1980. Being aggrieved the petitioner claiming to be the senior to Gopal Giri made representation. As the representation went unheeded he moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mohitosh Mazumdar, J. in CO. No...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swedish East Asia Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: (1992)94CTR(Cal)106,[1992]193ITR608(Cal)
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. - The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal 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 rule 4 of the Second to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capital of the non-resident assessee company should be determined with reference to its income instead of its operating revenue ?'The facts as narrated by the Tribunal are as under :'The assessee is a shipping company, having its head office in Sweden. Part of its income is assessable in India in terms of section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the course of assessment proceedings to surtax, a question arose as to how the capital of the company for the purposes of the Surtax Act should be computed. The company worked out the capital for purpose of the Surtax Act by taking Indian capital to world capital to world capital in the same ratio as In...
Revenue Officer and ors. Vs. Asit Kumar Bondyopadhayay
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT293(HC)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts involved in this appeal inter alia, are that one Nemai Charan Bondyopadhayay, by a duly executed and registered deed of Nirupanpatra dated December 9, 1946 gave his properties in different proportion to his six sons and two sisters. The donees were delivered possession of the properties and got their names mutated in the records of the landlords and paid rent payable in respect of their respective shares in the properties both in the district settlement record of rights and in the revisional settlement of record of rights. The properties in question were recorded in the name of the petitioner. The original donor, namely, Nemai Charan Bandopadhyaya filed a return in Form-'B' exercising option to retain the lands which were left to him. After the execution of the said Nirupanpatra a Big Raiyat case being No. 514/111 of 1968 was started in respect of the properties held by the said Nemai Charan Bandopadhyaya and the said case was ultimately dropped and th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »