Kolkata Court February 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jhanzie Tea Association
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Cal)5,[1989]179ITR295(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This case relates to an assessment of income of a tea company and the relevant assessment year is the assessment year 1970-71, for which the accounting period was the year ending on March 31, 1970. The assessee is a non-resident company. It owned a number of tea estates. Under different agreements with various parties, it wanted to sell some of its tea estates. The assessee sold four tea estates, namely, (1) Seleng Tea Estate, (2) Baisahabi Tea Estate, (3) Jaipur Tea Estate and (4) Namsang Tea Estate, under different agreements and all these agreements contained more or less identical terms and conditions. One such agreements is dated September 15, 1969, for the sale of Seleng Tea Estate, a copy of which has been annexed to the statement of case.2. The Tribunal has found that the assessee-company had agreed to sell Seleng Tea Estate with effect from January 1, 1969, and the other three tea estates with effect from January 1, 1970, but the deeds of conveyance in ...
Dilip Kumar Guha Niyogi and ors. Vs. the Jute Corporation of India Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT301(HC)
Mahitosh Majumdar, J.1. This writ application is directed against the office orders being No. JCI/1(55)-83 Admn. I, dated 13th January, 1983. Office Order No. JCI/1(55)-83 Admn. 1, dated 22nd February, 1983 and Office Order No, JCI/1(8)/83 Admn. issued by the Personnel Manager, Jute Corporation of India Ltd.2. The above orders are quoted below :'No. JCI/1(55)-83 Admn. I, dated 13th January, 1983CircularSubject : Filing up of a few posts of Junior Assistants from amongst the existing Junior Inspector.(1) It has been decided by the Management to fill up a few posts of Junior Assistants at Head Office from amongst the existing Junior Inspectors who will be required to perform re-weighment and grade verification jobs at mill points against despatches made to the various mills in addition to the normal duties as Junior Assistants at Head Office and such other work as may be assigned from time to time.(2) The selected candidates shall have to accept the post of Junior Assistant with 'zero' s...
Haradhan Manna Vs. Bidhubala Bhuniya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT320(HC)
J.N. Hore, J.1. This revisional application is directed against Order Nos. 118 and 119 both, dated 14.5.54 passed by the learned Munsif, Amta in Title Suit No. 53 of 1971 allowing the plaintiff's prayer for appointment of a hand-writing expert for examining the disputed deed of agreement.2. Late Sudhamoy @ Sudarsan Bhuniya, the predecessor in interest of the opposite parties, instituted Title Suit No. 53 of 1971 in the Court of Munsif at Amta against the petitioner as defendant under Sections 30, 36 and 37A of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, upon the allegations that he had mortgaged the Suit property for a sum of Rs. 500 with the defendant petitioner on 16th Jaistha 1375 B.S. with interest at the rate of Rs. 4 per month and since the defendant had no money-lending licence. He got an ostensible sale deed executed by the plaintiff along with an unregistered agreement for reconveyance for a sum of Rs, 500 together with 2 years interest at the said rate amounting to Rs, 480 aggregating to R...
Smt. Arati Basu Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT413(HC)
K.M. Yusuf, J.1. In this writ application the Memo No. 1562, dated 18/19.1.1989 issued from the Chief Valuer and Surveyor's Department, Calcutta Municipal Corporation is under challenge. By this Memo the Corporation intimated the petitioner that the building plan submitted by her in respect of premises No. 48A, Badridas Temple Street, Calcutta cannot be sanctioned due to a scheme for opening: out a Park covering the entire premises in question as per resolution of the Borough Committee II, dated 17.8.87 and action is being taken for implementation of the said scheme.2. Mr. Chatterjee, the Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Borough Committees have no such function to exercise. The functions of the Borough Committees are specifically stated in Sub-section (6) of the said Section and in no way those relate to opening out a park or making out any such scheme on the part of any ...
AzimuddIn Ansari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1298
Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, J.1. The validity of an order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ordinance' for the sake of convenience) is under challenge, in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Intelligence was collected by the Eastern Zonal Unit of the Narcotics Control, Bureau at Calcutta that the petitioner used to engage carriers to bring charas from Nepal to Calcutta and that a consignment of charas was expected on 12-1-88 or 13-1-88 through two of the petitioner's carriers, Chinta Shah and Ainul Haque Ansari alias Garju, who had been sent by the petitioner to Nepal from Calcutta a few days back. To work out this information, vigilance was kept at Mikado Lodge at 68/1, Surya Sen Street, Calcutta-9, by the officers of the Narcotics Control, Bureau. At about 7 a.m. on 13-1-88 Chinta Shah and Ainul Haque Ansari alais Garju, were found carr...
Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas93(Cal)
Desai, C.J.1. This appeal is taken up for hearing by treating it as included in the day's cause list.2. The appellants herein were the original writ petitioners and the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises. The relief claimed in the said writ petition, inter alia, was to direct the respondents to give effect forthwith to the order dated September 8, 1987 and the circular dated September 17, 1987 (annexures 'A' and 'B', to the writ petition) and to extend the benefit of enhanced interim relief to the concerned employees of the second respondent-company, in terms of the said order and the said circular. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge holding that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, : [1985]3SCR598 , this court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.3. The order (annexure 'A') issued by the Gover...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Bajrang Electric Steel Co. (P.) L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1989
Reported in: [1991]188ITR467(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. Two questions have been referred by the Tribunal : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire amount of the provision for expenses was allowable in computing the profits and gains of the assessee's business 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant' Commissioner was correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to determine the development rebate admissible to the assessee and carry forward the same in accordance with law ?' 2. The first question relates to, the liability of the assessee to pay bonus. The finding of the Tribunal as stated in the statement of case is that the assessee-company had made provision amounting to Rs. 40,000 for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70 and Rs. 80,000 for the assessment year 1968-69 in its accounts. It claimed the said amounts as deduction on account of ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Sri Patrick Gillam Sandy's Lumsdaine
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)87CTR(Cal)17,[1990]186ITR411(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal to this court under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that an appeal lay to the Appellate Controller against the order made by the Assistant Controller under Section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'2. The dispute in this case was with regard to the valuation of shares of Williamson Magon and Co. Ltd. In the original estate duty assessment, the Assistant Controller had made the valuation at Rs. 101.61 per share. This order was rectified by an order under Section 61 of the Act dated December 28, 1972. Under the rectification order, the shares were valued at Rs. 162,27 per share.3. Another point argued before the Tribunal was that any appeal against this order should not have been entertained by the appellate authority because the order was not appealable. It was contended t...
Indian Aluminium Co. Vs. Third Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1989
Reported in: 96CWN827,(1993)IIILLJ199Cal
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. Suhas Chandra Sen, J: This case arises out of an order passed by the Third Industrial Tribunal on 16th November, 1982 on a reference from the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department on 4th November, 1980.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case may be briefly set out as under:Animesh Chandra Sen is a Geologist. He passed M.Sc. from Calcutta University and joined Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. The initial appointment was as an Assistant Geologist on temporary basis at the Company s Lohardaga Mines, near Ranchi in the State of Bihar. This appointment was with effect from 1st November, 1963 at a salary of Rs. 500A per month. Shri Sen was made permanent with effect from 1st June 1965 and his salary was raised to Rs. 550/- per month. Later on his salary was further increased to Rs. 988/- per month.On 25th September, 1969, Shri Sen was given a promotion to the post of Geologist and was assigned also technical, personnel and public relation activities and the...
Krishnadhar Adya Vs. Gopi Nath Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT255(HC)
L.M. Ghosh, J.1. On the basis of a binapatra dated 5-12-65, executed by the defendant, the plaintiff filed a suit for Specific Performance of Contract against the defendant. It is not disputed that such a binapatra was executed. In defence, two points were urged : first that the transaction was a transaction of loan in substance and that the description of the property in the instrument was not sufficient to identify the property.2. The learned trial court decreed the suit, holding that the insufficiency of the description in the instrument, Ext. 1, was not enough for dismissing the suit, when the property was capable of being identified. As regards* the point of loan in substance, the learned trial court just referred to the fact that the defendant claimed that he signed the document without knowing the contents, which was not an acceptable story as he was a literate person. It may be noticed that the learned Munsif did not further proceed to examine whether in spite of his knowledge ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »