Kolkata Court June 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.
Samir Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Hirendra Nath Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Cal129
ORDERAjit Kumar Nayak, J.1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Ali-pore, affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court in a suit for eviction of the defendant on revocation of his licence as a licensee,3. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. His defence, in short, was that he was a tenant or for the matter of that, a sub-tenant under the plaintiff who was a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- payable according to English calendar month and not a licensee at all. It was alleged that the father of the defendant was also a tenant in the suit premises and that the plaintiff accepted the defendant as a tenant in respect of the said room only after taking a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as advance subject to adjustment against the rent payable by the defendant/appellant. It was alleged that as because the defendant/appellant demanded rent receipt the plaintiff start...
Food Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Swaran Kumar Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT360(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. The main appeal, in connection with which the present Cross-Objection had been preferred, had been disposed of but the Cross-Objection had been left pending. The said appeal was directed against the Judgment, dated 18th December, 1982, of the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Howrah, in Title Suit No. 43 of 1980, passing a decree in terms of the award given by the Arbitrator and was at the instance of the defendant. The present Cross-Objection is at the instance of the plaintiff and the main point which has been agitated on behalf of the plaintiff is for default of the learned Judge and/or refusal by him to grant interest from the date of the decree till the date of realisation of the decreed amount.2. The Arbitration Award is dated 28.1.1982. The said award was challenged on behalf of the defendant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The plaintiff also preferred an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award a ...
Dibakar Sahu Vs. State Transport Authority, West Bengal and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal146,94CWN987
ORDER1. A supplementary Reciprocal Transport Agreement was entered into by and between the State of West Bengal and the State of Orissa in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(3B) of the preceding Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in view of the contiguity of the two States and for the purpose of development of inter-State traffic and the same, being Notification No. 10709-WT dated 17th September, 1986, was published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 25th October, 1986. It has not been, as it cannot be, disputed that the said Reciprocal Agreement, though made under the provisions of the preceding Act of 1939, is still validly operative and shall be deemed to have been made under the corresponding provision of Section 88 of the present Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, in view of Section 217 thereof. Both under Section 88(6) of the present Act of 1988, as was under Section 63(3B) of the preceding Act of 1939, 'the State TransportAuthority of the State and the Regional Transport Au...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Subarna Rekha Agricultural Estate.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1990
Reported in: (1992)107CTR(Cal)313
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 for its determination :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in its view that the maximum rate of tax under s. 164(1) of the IT Act, 1961 could not be applied to the income of the trust set apart under the reserve fund ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1981-82 for which the relevant accounting period ended is 1980 calendar year.3. The facts found by the Tribunal are as under :The assessee is a private trust. Till the asst. yr. 1980-81, 35% of the total income kept in a general reserve used to be offered for taxation and was assessed to tax accordingly. In the assessment year under consideration a nil return was submitted. It was claimed before the ITO that by a resolution dt. 1st January, 1980, the Board of Trustee resolved to discontinue the reserve fund. It was further claimed that the entire income of th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Marinalini Biri Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1990
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Cal)327
BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of s. 194C of the IT Act the Tribunal was justified in holding that considering the role of the Munshi or Sardar in the manufacture of Biri, it cannot be said that their function is akin to that of a contractor.2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment of wages to the Biri workers by the assessee company through Munshis did not come within the purview of s. 194C of the IT Act and consequently the assessee was not required to deduct tax under the provision of s. 194C of the IT Act from the payment made to the Munshis.3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under s. 221 r/w s. 201(1A) of the IT Act, levied by the ITO...
Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR628(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, recall and cancel the orders communicated by the letters dated May 4, 1988, and January 24, 1989, and to forbear and refrain from giving any effect or further effect thereto. There is a further prayer for commanding the respondents to make a recommendation as contemplated under sections 72A(1) and 72A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and for other consequential reliefs on the ground that the specified authority, having already given an intimation under Section 72A(3) of the Act after being satisfied about the conditions mentioned under Section 72A(1), is bound to make a recommendation to the Central Government under Section 72A(1) of the Act. It is asserted that, on the basis of the said recommendation, the Central Government is bound to make a declaration under the aforesaid section, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the ...
Smt. Pratima Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1990
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT282(HC),(1992)IILLJ702Cal
Susanta Chatterji, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to get absorbed in the regular establishment of Typist in the officer of the respondent No. 4, Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer, Katwa and further commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Typist in the office of the respondent No. 4 accordingly. There is further a prayer for quashing the impugned order being Annexure 'H' to the writ petition. It is stated in detail that the petitioner was working for more than required number of days as Typist in the office of the respondent No. 4 and yet she has not been absorbed in the regular establishment. There is allegation that the respondents sought to terminate the service of the petitioner and in such circumstances, the petitioner filed a previous writ petition which was disposed of by Mahitosh Majumdar J. directing the petitioner to make a represe...
Smt. Juthika Rani Sil Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1990
Reported in: 1990(50)ELT247(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule was issued at the instance of the writ petitioner challenging the notice dated 11th May, 1978 (Annex. A) issued by the respondent No. 2, the Competent Authority, Calcutta, Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.2. It is contended that the purported notice is vague, devoid of particulars, and in fact, the same is not in conformity with the requirements as laid down under Section 6(1) of the said Act. The writ petition and the Rule are contested by the respondents.3. Mr. Saha, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2, could not have any reason to believe on the alleged information and/or relevant materials on the basis of which he could entertain any belief that the properties held by the writ petitioner were illegally acquired within the meaning of Section 3(l)(c) of the above-mentioned Act. The immovable properties as stated in the Schedule to the impugned notice have ...
Debasis Pal Choudhuri Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT10(HC),(1992)ILLJ137Cal,1990(5)SLR192
Khwaja Mohammed Yusuf, J.1. The petitioner's case, in brief, is that he was appointed as a cashier-cum-clerk-cum-godown clerk in United Industrial Bank Ltd in 1977 in Basirhat in the District of 24-Parganas and subsequently he was transferred to Accounts Department at Head Office at Calcutta. By Circular Memorandum No. 807 of October 14, 1980, the Bank invited applications for the post of Special Assistant from the clerks who are graduates with three years service as on October 1, 1980 and all other clerks (Under Graduates) having five years of service as on October 1, 1980, and in the said Circular the candidates were directed to state the date of appointment, qualification and their option for area of posting. The petitioner applied for the post of Special Assistant stating the option for area of posting in Calcutta or Metropolitan Area and also categorically stated therein that as he is the only son of old ailing parents, he would not be in a position to serve the Bank by staying ou...
Debi Prasanna Chattapadhaya Vs. Director of Cottage and Small Scale In ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT433(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. Order of termination passed by the Director of Cottage and Small Scale Industries dated December 18, 1987, has been impugned in the instant writ petition by the writ petitioner, Debi Prasanna Chattopadhaya.2. It appears that the said order of termination was passed in respect of the petitioner, Debi Prasanna Chattopadhaya, who was appointed provisionally on 'purely temporary basis pending verification of his antecedents to the 'extra-temporary post of Enumerator' under the Scheme of Census Cum Sample Survey of Small Scale Industrial Units in West Bengal, by order of the Directorate dated March 25, 1983, which has been terminated from the date of issue of the order, as he was considered 'unsuitable' for employment under the Government.3. This writ petition was admitted by Mahitosh Majumdar J, on April 8, 1988, and subsequently this writ petition was mentioned before me on March 9, 1990, and, after completion of affidavits, it was heard on several days by m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »