Kolkata Court July 1990 Judgments
Sk. Firoj and Another Vs. Sakhya Singha Mullick and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal161,(1991)1CALLT296(HC),1991(1)CHN7
ORDER1. The opposite parties filed Ejectment Suit No. 106 of 1984 in the Court of Munsif, Purulia against one Hem Chandra Kar, petitioners and pro forma opposite parties for eviction of the defendants in the suit from the suit property. It was alleged that Hem Chandra was a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 30/-. The said tenant had sub-let the suit premises to the father of the petitioners and pro forma opposite party No. 4 without consent of the landlord. The plaintiff-opposite parties 1 and 2 served notice both under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act asking them to vacate the suit property. The suit ended in an ex parte decree on 20th June, 1986. In the ex parte judgment there is no finding as to service of a valid notice under Section 13(6) ofthe West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act).2. The said decree is sought to be executed by virtue of Title Execution Case No. 17 of 1986. The petit...
Tag this Judgment!Harekrishna Sarkar and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal164
ORDER1. This writ petition was moved on July 1, 1988, challenging the final order dated June 13, 1988, passed in a proceeding under Section 44(2a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, which was initiated for the second time in respect of the correction of the selfsame Khatian which would be evident from the following facts.2. At the time of admission of the writ petition Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J. having issued a Rule granted interim order in the presence of Mr. Bijon Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate, for the State-respondents, and thereby, stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice also granted stay of operation of the order in (sic) such second Section 44(2a) proceeding.3. The writ petition has come up for final hearing before me on July 10, 1990, and it was heard in part on the said date and on thesubsequent dates, that is, on July 17, and today, July 31, 1990.4. Mr. Santimoy Panda, learned Advocate at the final hearing of the writ petition places the f...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Prasad Shaw and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ639,I(1992)DMC30
S.P. Rajkhowa, J.1. In this Criminal Revision, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceeding in Case No. C. 1249 of 1984 Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta.2. The facts of the proceeding in brief are as follows :'Smt. Usha Shaw, sister of the complainant Bhagwat Prasad Gupta (O.P. No. 2) was given in marriage to Shankar Prasad Shaw alias Gupta (accused-petitioner No. 1) according to the Hindu rites and rituals on 14-5-81 at Calcutta. After the marriage Usha Shaw was brought to the matrimonial house of Shankar Prasad and both of them spent their conjugal life happily for about a month but that happiness was shortlived. The husband along with his father Parameswar Prasad Shaw (accused-petitioner No. 2), his brother Anil Kumar Shaw (accused-petitioner No. 3) and his sister Smt. Asha Shaw (accused-petitioner No. 4) began to make illegal demands to Ush...
Tag this Judgment!Samarendra Kumar Mukherjee Vs. K.M. Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT8(HC)
Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J.1. This Contempt Rule was issued on, 20th May, 1983 by Mr. Justice G. N. Ray for violating the Court's Order dated 2nd August, 1982. His Lordship released the matter from his list and it was assigned to Mr. Justice M. K. Mukherjee and His Lordship too was not inclined to take up the matter on personal ground and ultimately the Hon'ble the Chief Justice assigned the matter to me on 26th April, 1990.2. On 11th May, 1990 it was detected that one Sri Animesh Ranjan Dutta, Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation, Contemner No. 3, filed an Affidavit- in-Opposition duly affirmed on 16th March, 1987 on his behalf and on behalf of the Contemners Nos. 1 and 2. On that date I passed the order accepting the Affidavit-in-Opposition so far as the Contemner No. 3 was concerned and rejected the Affidavit-in-Opposition so far as the Contemners Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned as the Contemner No. 3 filed the Affidavit on...
Tag this Judgment!Tribeni Tissues Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT354(Cal)
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from giving any effect or acting in terms of or taking any steps pursuant to the order bearing No. 212/83-C of the Tribunal and from giving effect to or acting in terms of or taking any steps in terms of the notice bearing Nos. V-14(15)72-CE/WB/75/Pt.II/15680-C dated 24th August, 1983 issued by the Collector, Central Excise, West Bengal, Calcutta, being Annexure 'I' to the petition, with a further prayer on the same count for issuance of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from charging, demanding or realising any excise duty on precipitated chalk manufactured by the Company or to be sold, used or to be used by the Company. There is also a prayer for a further writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund and restore to the petitioner all excise duties so far realised on precipitated chalk sold by the company a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Grindlays Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1990
Reported in: [1994]208ITR700(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the departmental appeal is time-barred in spite of the fact that the relevant appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Calcutta, in Appeal No. 15/C/CIT(A)-II of 1981-82, dated January 28, 1982, was served on the appellant-Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Special Circle II, Calcutta, on April 21, 1982, and he submitted the appeal before the Tribunal on May 28, 1982 ?'2. The short question is whether the Tribunal was right in declining to condone the delay in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Calcutta, on January 28, 1982.3. The order of assessment was passed by the Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79 on September 25, 198...
Tag this Judgment!Pramatha Kumar Maity Vs. Ashima Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal123,(1991)1CALLT447(HC),1991(1)CHN244,95CWN486,II(1991)DMC35
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. Thesuit was rightly dismissed and the appeal therefore must follow suit or follow the suit.2. The husband-appellant sued the wife-respondent for dissolution of marriage on the ground specified in Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, namely, the respondent wife 'has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittenly from mental disorder of a such kind and to such an extent that the petitioner can not be reasonably expected to live with the respondent.3. Sound health, in these days of pollution of air and water, adulteration of foodstuff and drugs and all that is a rare species. So is sound mind, as a result of all the stress and strain, anxiety and tension of the modern age. The legislature has not made unsound-ness of mind or mental disorder, by itself, a matrimonial fault unless the unsoundness is incurable or the disorder is such as to disable the person to become a reasonably tolerable matrimonial partner.4...
Tag this Judgment!India Foils Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR429(Cal)
Susanta Chatterjee, J.1. The present rule was issued on March 15, 979, at the instance of the writ petitioner, Messrs. India Foils Limited, praying, inter alia, for an appropriate writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to deal with and dispose of the applications made under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act and/or stay of realization of demands for the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 and not to treat the petitioner as a defaulter till the disposal of the appeals pending before the appellate authorities and also to command the respondents to rescind and/or withdraw three notices dated February 27, 1979, issued under Section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, one each relating to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76 and the order contained in the letter dated November 18, 1978, relating to the assessment year 1973-74 and the order contained in the letter dated February 27, 1979, relating to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and all proceedings relating thereto an...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Bajaj and ors. Vs. Development and Builders (P) Ltd. and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT447(HC),95CWN531
Amulya Kumar Nandi, J.1. In a suit for ejectment the tenants petitioners filed an application (Annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition) for hearing all the issues touching the dispute as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant along with their application under Sections 17(2), 17(2A)(b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act hereinafter called the Act,2. By virtue of a petition under Section 151 C.P.C. the tenants amended their application under Sections 17(2), 17(2A)(b) of the Act to challenge the relationship. They have annexed copy of the said application as Annexture 'B' to their revisipnal application.3. The fifth Bench of the City Civil Court by order No. 70 dated 8.12.80 passed in Ejectment Suit No. 770 of 1983 has rejected the application. The said order is under impeachment in this revisional application.4. Mr. Bhattacharyya appearing for the petitioners-tenants contends that in order to dispose of an application under Section 17(2) of the Act the Court must...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Vandhan Bhagat Vs. West Bengal Essential Commodity Supply Corpor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Cal135
ORDER1. In this writ application the petitioner prayed for an order upon the respondents to deliver 750 quintals of splitover repessed oil or in the alternative to refund a sum of Rs. 2,86,000/- together with interest thereon at the prevailing bank rate.2. The fact of this case in short is that the West Bengal Essential Commodity Supply Corporation Limited issued a tender notice dated 25th February, 1986 for sale of spilt over stoks of refined oil and R.S.D. palm oil (packed in tins). The quantity of such oil was 1693 quintals kept in several godowns. It was submitted that the tender on the basis of the said notice on 11th March, 1986 after inspection of the goods offered for sale. The bid offered by the petitioner was the highest but the same was not accepted. Thereafter a fresh tender notice was issued on 13th August, 1986 in continuation of previous tender notice asking for fresh offer. In the subsequent tender notice dated 13th August, 1986 it was mentioned that the places at which...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »