Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1990Cal32
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th May, 1984 passed by Sri B. B. Sarkar, learned Additional District Judge, Rampurhat, Birbhum in Title Appeal No. 64 of 1980 selling aside the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 1980 passed by Sri T. Mukherjee, learned Munsif, second court, Rampurhat in Title Suit No. 74 of 1968 and remanding the suit with the direction to afford the plaintiffs opportunity to substitute the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 2 and to decide the suit accord ing to law keeping in view the findings and observations made in the body of the judgment.2. From the records it appears that thesuit has a chequered history. In 1968 the plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 74 of 1968 for declaration of right, title and interest in 'Ka' and 'Kha' schedule of lands of the plaint and for a declaration for recovery of khas possession in 'Ga' schedule of land. The plaint case was that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff No, 3 who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)2CALLT164(HC)
L.M. Ghosh, J.1. Sanat Kumar Halder of village Jamalpur, District Burdwan, died on 31.5.73. The petitioner, Nimai Chand Basu, filed Pro bate Suit No. 227 of 1973 in the District Court for obtaining the probate of the will of late Sanat Kumar Haider, said to have been executed on 18.5.72. The petitioner-propounder submitted that Sanat Kumar Haider executed the will of his free will and that he had had disposing capacity. The petitioner is the son of late Hrishikesh Basu, who was the friend of late Sanat Kumar Haider. It was stated that the testator had love and affection for the sons of Hrishikesh Basu and as a token of affection towards the petitioner and his brothers, made the provision in their favour by the said will. Sanat Kumar Haider died bachelor.2. Phanindra Nath Haider and Jagadish Haider, brothers of late Sanat Kumar Haider, filed objection. Various suggestions were thrown in the objection petition of the caveators. It was suggested that Sanat Kumar Haider was not aware of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)2CALLT209(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1, The Court: This Writ petition has been filed by Ayodhya Tewari who is a Senior Rakshak which post has now been redesignated as Nayek. It is stated by the petitioner as follows:The petitioner had been discharging his duties as Rakshak and senior Rakshak, Eastern Railway at various places including Asansol and Qndal and he continued to his post till 26th April, 1985 when he felt some eye trouble. In view of such eye trouble he got himself treated by the Divisional Medical Officer, Asansol. In course of such treatment the petitioner had to be operated upon. Consequent upon successful operation of the petitioner's eye the petitioner was declared fit by the concerned Divisional Medical Officer, Eastern Railway, Ondal under his Order No. H/Ex/UDL, dated 4.12.1985 on the basis of a special medical examination. By the said order, dated 4.12.1985 the petitioner was declared medically unfit in category EI and EII but the petitioner was found fit in category CI. By the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)2CALLT319(HC),94CWN61
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. This application is for recalling the order dated 15th June, 1987 passed by me dismissing the suit for non-prosecution.2. On or about 1st February, 1980 the plaintiff instituted this suit against the defendants, inter alia, for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent; Decree against the defendants or such of them as may be held liable to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 14,37,400.23 p. Declaration that the sum, of Rs. 9,33,377-16 is payable by the defendant or either of them to the plaintiff and decree directing the defendants to pay the sum of. Rs. 9,33,377.16p. along with interest thereon from 31st January, 1977 at the rate of 18% per annum until payment; Interim and further interest; Costs and other reliefs.3. On or about 10th April, 1980 the plaintiff made an application for summary judgment and there was also an application by defendant No. 1 for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Both the said applications were disposed of b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)2CALLT341(HC)
ORDERPrabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. The West Bengal State Electricity Board issued a notice inviting tender for fabrication and erection of structural steelwork for Kolaghat Thermal Power Project. The respondent Texmaco Ltd, submitted its tender quoting the prices with specific price variation terms covering certain items, the said structural steelworks. A formal agreement was executed between the West Bengal State Electricity Board and the Texmaco Ltd. on 20th September, 1980. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause which, inter alia, provides that in the event of disputes and differences between the parties the same shall be referred to the arbitration of two persons, one to be nominated by the purchaser and the other by the -contractor. The arbitrators thereafter nominated an umpire who shall be appointed before they enter upon the reference.2. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the same was referred to the arbitration in terms of the said arbitratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1989(43)ELT32(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present rules were issued relating to four writ petitions on 29-2-1980. There was, however, no interim order. It appears that applications were filed for refund of the excise duty paid by mistake. It was further placed on record that Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides for claim of refund of excess duty paid. The application for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta Division since refund claim was found to be barred by limitation. The said order was challenged before the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta. The Appellate -Authority considered the case carefully and in those four cases the appellate authority observed that the claim for refund was barred by limitation as Rule 11 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 do not provide anything for condonation of delay. Being aggrieved the petitioner moved in revision and the Additional Secretary to the Government of India found that the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1990)1CALLT331(HC),(1991)ILLJ536Cal
M.R. Mallick, J.1. This writ petition arises out of the award dated, 8th March, 1983 made by Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII-156/80.2. The facts are briefly as follows:As a result of a domestic enquiry held against the respondent No. 3 Pranab Kumar Banerjee, the petitioner passed the order of dismissal against him. Over such dismissal a dispute was raised and a reference has been made dated, 2nd August, 1980 to the Industrial Tribunal as follows.'Whether the termination of service with effect from 1st December, 1975 of Shri Pranab Kumar Banerjee is justified? To what relief, if any, is he entitled?'3. On or about 28th October, 1980, Shri Banerjee filed a written statement, inter alia, alleging for the first time that no officer below the rank of Factory Manager was competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and Shri K.K. Roy who issued the charge-sheet was not competent to issue such charge-sheet. The writ petitioner filed the written statement, Inter alia,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1990Cal1
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 17-8-85 passed by Sri S. P. Dutta, the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 687 of 1984 affirming the judgment and decree dt. 7th July, 1984 passed by Sri B, Das, the learned second Munsif,Alipore dismissing the Title Suit No. 15 of 1982.2. The plaint case in brief is that Smt. Rama Devi was previously the sole owner of the premises No. 107B, Karaya Road, Calcutta who by a registered deed of lease dt. 30th Oct., 1960, leased out the said premises for 21 years with effect from 1st Nov., 1960 to the defendant and to Sri Dhirendra Narayan Das who is the husband of the plaintiff. The premises was divided into two parts. One bed room on the Southern side together with one kitchen, one latrine and bath with common water tap in the ground floor were leased out to the defendant as shown in Schedule B of the said deed of lease at a monthly rental of Rs. 55A payable to the lessor according to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1989(44)ELT424(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has asked for recalling or cancellation of the orders or directions passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, being the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and Chief Controller of Imports and Exports respectively.2. The case of the petitioner is that he carries on business of manufacturer and exporter of, inter alia, cotton and silk Scarves and Stoles. In addition thereto the petitioner also exports all kinds of Silk/Cotton/Hosiery Textiles. The aforesaid business is carried on by the petitioner under the trade name 'Messrs Impex India' as Sole Proprietor thereof. The petitioner is duly registered as a small scale industrial unit with the Directorate of Cottage & Small Scale Industries Government of West Bengal, as well as with the Department of Textiles of the Ministry of Commerce of the Government of India.3. In order to boost exports, the Government of India has been announcing fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1990)84CTR(Cal)122,[1991]190ITR81(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax An. 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the deduction under Section 80T of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should have been computed by reference to the amount of capital gains as reduced by loss under the head 'Capital gains' brought forward from earlier years and not by reference to the amount of capital gains arising during the relevant previous year without any such deduction ?'2. The year of assessment is 1972-73 for which the relevant accounting period was the year ending on October 17, 1971 (Dewali 2028 S. Y.). It appears from the statement of case that the assessee is a Hindu undivided family. For this assessment year, the assessee had, amongst, other incomes, income from capital gains on sale of property at 30, Tara Chand Dutta Street, Calcutta, amounting to Rs. 1,89,000....
Tag this Judgment!