Kolkata Court December 1990 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.
Jayabati Chatterjee Vs. Bimala Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT212(HC),95CWN1016
Anandamoy Bhattacharjee, J.1. These two Second Appeals having been presented and also heard under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the commencement of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1976, whereby a new Section 100 has been substituted for the old one, shall be governed by the provision of Section 100, as it stood before, in view of the saving provisions contained in Section 97(1) (m) of the Amendment Act of 1976.2. But even Under Section 100 of the Code, as it stood before, our apex Courts have consistently deprecated interference with the finding of fact and the Supreme Court even had to regret in Deity Pattabhiramaswamy (AIR 1959 SC 57 at 59) that High Courts, in their anxiety to do justice, were disposing of Second Appeals as if they were first appeals.3. Not that finding of fact was beyond the reach of and a 'no-entry' area for the High Courts. As reiterated by the Supreme Court in Mattulal v. Radhelal : [1975]1SCR127 , a find...
John Jeffrey Madan Vs. Harish Kumar Arora and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT182(HC)
Anandamoy Bhattacharjee, J.1. A suit for eviction of tenant having been decreed against the tenant ex parte, the tenant filed an application for setting aside the same under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the same having been dismissed on merits, the tenant-defendant has filed this appeal.2. A Court of first appeal has no doubt all the powers of a trial Court as provided in Section 107 of the Code. But, to borrow from Shakespeare, while it may be good to have giant's power, it is not always good to use the same as a giant and therefore even a first appeal is not always to be treated as a full-fledged second round of trial subjecting the evidence and materials on record afresh to the strictest possible scrutiny.3. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Khoo sit Hoh v. Lim Thean Tong, (1912 Appeal Cases 323), when an appellate Court is to express opinion on the credibility of conflicting witnesses whom it has not seen or heard or questioned, it must...
National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Labour E ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT1(HC)
Anandamoy Bhattacharjee, J.1. A criminal prosecution has been initiated under Section 24 of the Contract Labour (Regulation Abolition) Act, 1970 against a Government Company and its Chairman & Managing Director, its Construction Superintendent and its Executive Engineer. The Company and the Officers, but not the Chairman & Managing Director, have moved this Court against the order of issuance of process and have urged that the prosecution ought to be quashed. For the reasons stated hereunder, we decline to do so.2. It has been urged that since the accused company is a Government company whose entire share capital has been subscribed mainly by the Central Government and also by some State Governments, it is very much an instrumentality of the State or the Government and a criminal prosecution against such a one must fail as the State or the Government cannot be criminally procecuted.3. The Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 does not exclude the State or the Government or...
Mohit Mohan Choudhury and anr. Vs. Abdul Rouf Mia Alias Madhu Miya and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT361(HC),95CWN883
Anandamoy Bhattacharjee, J.1. The questions involved in this Second Appeal are no longer res Integra, but are covered by binding precedents and governing ourselves by them, as we must, we cannot but dismiss the appeal, which we hereby do.2. Our Law Reports abound in cases dealing with the question as to whether a business, which under the law, can be carried on only under and in accordance with a statutory licence or permit, but is carried on by the holder of the licence or permit in co-partnership with others not having any such licence or permit, is illegal as being forbidden by law or defeating the provisions of the law or as against public policy. As usual, our Courts have spoken in different voices on different occasions and the views propounded therein may sometimes defy reconciliation.3. But confining ourselves to the decision of the Privy Council in Gordhandas v. Champsey (AIR 1921 Privy Council 137) affirming the decision of the Bombay High Court in Champdey v. Gordhandas (AIR...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Jagannath Steel Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR676(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1984-85. The facts are in a narrow compass. During the year of account ending on March 31, 1984, being the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee collected an aggregate sum of Rs. 5,03,310 as and by way of Central sales tax. During the said year of account, the assessee paid in the aggregate Central sales tax of Rs. 4,02,136 leaving a balance of Rs. 1,01,174 which was taken to the balance-sheet. The Income-tax Officer, invoking the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, added the said sum of Rs. 1,01,174 to the income returned by the assessee. On his part, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) declined to interfere in the matter. Thereupon, the assessee moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that if the assessee is allowed time under the statute governing payment of sales tax and such payment is made within the ...
Sahadev Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Cal203,(1991)1CALLT426(HC),1991(2)CHN202,96CWN1004
ORDER1.The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Sahadev Sarkar praying inter alia for a writ of Mandamus commanding the State respondent to grant the mining lease of the land in question in his name and/ or in the name of the pro forma Respondent on the basis of their respective applications and/or also commanding the respondents to cancel, set aside and/or withdraw all the orders, memos and/ or decisions regarding the grant of mining lease of the said lands to persons who have applied later on and for other consequential reliefs on the ground that the respondent authorities should have considered the applications of the petitioner and the pro forma respondent in terms of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble' Mr. Justice Shyamsuddin Ahmed and the inaction of the authorities is illegal, mala fide and motivated. It is alleged that the respondent authorities have acted against the relevant provisions of the Statute and in particular, the petitioner and the pro forma res...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: [1993]204ITR154(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. This reference at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1978-79. The question which has been raised in this reference is as follows :'Whether, on the fads and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was at liberty to changeits method of accounting in respect of payment of bonus from cash system to mercantile system ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that, in the past, the assessee was debiting to the profit and loss account of the year the bonus relating to the immediately preceding year that was actually paid during the year. In other words, the assessee was not making any provision for payment of bonus in the accounts of the year to which the bonus related. Instead, it used to debit the bonus actually paid during the year to the profit and loss account of the year even though the bonus related to the working of an earlier year. In short, the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shiva Prasad Bagaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: [1991]191ITR139(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1983-84, the following question of law has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from the earlier years could be allowed to be set off against the assessee's income of the relevant previous year even though the business to which such unabsorbed depreciation related did not exist during the year ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee was a partner in Shree Mahadeo Jute Mills Co. sharing 45 per cent, of the profit. The assessee was allocated the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,79,702. Out of the said unabsorbed depreciation, a sum of Rs. 1,21,108 was adjusted against the income from another firm, Partabmull Poonamchand, and the balance depreciation of Rs. 2,58,594 was carried forward under Section 32(2) read with Sectio...
Smt. Kanika Ghosh and ors. Vs. Siliguri Tea Brokers (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT416(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. Siliguri Tea Brokers Pvt. Ltd. filed the Special Suit being No. 46 of 1990 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act against M/s. Rahut Syndicate, a partnership firm praying for the Arbitration Agreement dated 22nd December, 1989 to be filed in court and for reference of the disputes as specified in the said petition of Section 20 of, the Arbitration Act to be referred to Arbitration in terms of the Arbitration Agreement.2. An application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act being Matter No. 1360 of 1990 has also been filed by Siliguri Tea Brokers Pvt. Ltd. in which interim orders dated 10th May 1990 and 16th May 1990 have been obtained.3. The said Special suit as well as the petition under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act has been contested by Ashok Rahut, Sm. Kanika Ghosh, Smt. Aparna Rahut, Smt. Sabitri Rahut, Sri Tapas Kumar Rahut, Sri Pradip Kr. Rahut and Smt. Lina Ghatak, Smt. Runa Naha and Sri Ajoy Kr. Rahut for and on behalf of Rahut Syndicate claimin...
Subir Kumar Kundu Alias Sambhu Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1502
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The accused-petitioner was convicted by the trial Court under Section 494 of the Penal Code for committing the offence of bigamy and the conviction and also the sentence imposed by the trial Court have been affirmed in appeal. Mr. Balai Roy, the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, has assailed the conviction mainly on two grounds, the first being that the alleged second marriage has not been proved as the essential ceremonies required for its solemnisation have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the second being that various circumstances relied on by the trial Court in support of the conviction were not put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal P.C.2. At least from 1869 when the Privy Council decided Inderun v. Ramaswamy, 13 Moere's Indian Appeals 141, the law appears to be well-settled (at 158) for more than a century that 'if there was a marriage in fact, there would be a presumption in favour of there being a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »