Kolkata Court September 1990 Judgments
Jahurul Islam Vs. Abul Kalam and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal132,95CWN536
ORDERS.S. Ganguly, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore, 24-Paraganas in Title Suit Nos. 112 and 209 both of 1982.2. Admittedly late Gholam Quadir, the owner in khas possession of the disputed six cottahs of land more or less mentioned in the schedules of the plaints, died sometime in 1959 leaving behind him his widow Feroza Jahan Begum alias Feroza Jatian Quadir, two sons Sultan and Sartaz and four daughters Munawar, Anwar, Quamar and Tajwar who succeeded to the said property according to the rules of Mohammedan Law. Admittedly Abul Kalam (the sole plaintiff in Title Suit No. 209 of 1982) is in possession of the suit land at present along with certain other persons whom he claims to have inducted and they all have been running businesses separately there.3. Abul Kalam filed Title Suit No. 209 of 1982 (originally Title Suit No. 123 of 198,1) against Feroza Jahan Begum, Jahrul Islam (the plaintiff in Title...
Tag this Judgment!Middle East Bank Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh Sethia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal335
ORDER1. This is an application under Order 21, Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure for examination of judgment-debtor Rajendra Singh Sethia as to his property in a proceeding for execution of a foreign decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division of England.2. Sometime in January, 1984 the plaintiff-decree-holder, Middle East Bank Ltd., filed a suit in the Queen's Bench Division in the High Court of Justice in London against amongst others the respondent/judgment-debtor, Rajendra Singh Sethia. The suit was filed against the respondent/judgment-debtor along with four others. The writ of summons was served on the respondent/ judgment-debtor and the other defendants in the suit. The said writ of summons was accepted by the Solicitors of the third defendant (the judgment-debtor by the name of Messrs. Iringhans). A certificate of such service was issued by the Master of Queens Bench Division of the Supreme Court of England and Wales.3. On 8th February, 1985 the plain...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Netai Charan Day Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Another Etc. Vs. Gene ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal397,95CWN833
ORDER1. Both the writ petitions have been heard together. The facts and questions involved are so similar that the learned Counsel appearing in both cases have agreed that the decision is one shall govern the other.In fact similar arguements have been advanced by the petitioners in both the petitions, countered by similar arguments by and on behalf of the respondent's I accordingly propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment.2. It has not been disputed that the respondents assured and agreed to provide the petitioners with central subsidy. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have acted on the basis of such assurance and argument and have altered their position. In fact, even the fact that cheques have been issued by the authorities and also received by the respondent No. 1 for payment to the respective petitioners, but that the respondent No. 1 has declined to handover the cheques to the petitioners, have also not been disputed.3. By the interim order...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tinplate Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: [1994]207ITR729(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1979-80, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the words 'salary' and 'perquisite' as defined in Explanation 2 to Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the cash allowances would form part of salary paid to the employees for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the said Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,421 paid to the managing director as salary and perquisites, which became recoverable from the payee within the relevant 'previous year' by virtue of his appointment not getting the approval of the Central Government was allowable as a deduction in computing the assessee's income f...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anara Devi Charitable Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-1990
Reported in: [1993]202ITR42(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1982-83, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire proceeds of gold were invested in acquisition of other capital assets, within the meaning of Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of Rs. 41,000 being capital gains arising on sale of gold ?' 2. Shortly stated the facts are that during the relevant previous year the assessee-trust sold gold, received by way of a corpus donation in the preceding year, for a sum of Rs. 7,38,500 and made a profit of Rs. 41,000. The assessee claimed that the net consideration of the sale was kept in fixed deposit with Dena Bank, Calc...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar, Jadavpur University Vs. Smt. Alka D. Hemani and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal140
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. I have had the advantage of going through the judgment preparred by my learned brother Ray, J. and I am glad to express my full concurrence. I agree With Ray, J. that the appeal is to be allowed and that the order of requisition, passed under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, assailed with success in the Court below, is to be upheld for the reasons stated in appreciable details by my learned brother. But my unqualified concurrence notwithstanding, I have thought it fit to add a few words in respect of the proviso to Section 3(1) of the aforesaid Act. I am inclined to hold that the words of the Proviso warrant liberal, and not literal, approach and should be purposively construed without any rigid adherence to the letters of the law.2. Sub-section (1) to Section 3 of the Act authorises requisition of land by the State Government, with a view to its subsequent acquisition, for certain purposes specified therein and on...
Tag this Judgment!Maddi Lakshmaiah and ors. Vs. Duncan Agro Industries Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-1990
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT309(HC),95CWN720
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. By this Judge's summon the petitioners Maddi Lakshmaiah, Maddi Lakshmaiah & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Maddi Lakshmaiah Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. seek, inter alia, appropriate direction against Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. to pay Rs. 60,24,689.32p; if necessary, suitable order directing modification of the order dated 31st July, 1984 and in the event the said sum of Rs. 60,24,289.32p. is not paid by said Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. the company may be directed to be wound up.2. The petitioners carry on business as suppliers of Tobacco. The National Tobacco Co. Ltd. also known as (NTC) which, until 1977 carried on business of processing of Tobacco and manufacturing of Cigarettes and Tobacco products. The said National Tobacco Co. Ltd. was one of the regular customers of the petitioners.3. In or about 1977 Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'DAIL') which was mainly engaged in the Tea business proposed to expand its business activities in Tobacco. I...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. Bata India Ltd. and Anothers
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal365
1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 8th August 1988 passed by Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board allowing the appeal preferred, inter alia, by Bata India Limited (hereinafter referred to also the 'respondent company').2. Shortly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:Acting on information that the respondent company and its Directors are suspected to indulge in unauthorised transactions inforeign exchange, the officers of the Enforcement Directors, Calcutta, searched the head office, the sales office and the factory of the respondent company situated at Batanagar and the residences of O.P. Bhutani, Director (Finance) of the respondent company resulting in the recovery and seizure of certain documents. The statements of certain officers of the respondent company were also recorded by the officers. On the basis therefore, seven show cause notices were issued to the respondent company and its Directors.3. The charges under show cause notices being S...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orient Beverages Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1990
Reported in: [1993]203ITR559(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, 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 justified in law in holding that the commission paid to the broker in order to let out a house or any portion of it at a fair rent was an admissible deduction as collection charges within the meaning of Section 24(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in this view directing the Income-tax Officer to allow brokerage of Rs. 15,000 paid by the assessee as collection charges ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company derived income from letting out its own house property. While computing the said income, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 15,000 paid by it as brokerage to one Mr. Kamlesh Gulati for letting out the second floor of the premises No. 225, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. The income-tax authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Lamps Limited Vs. Furmanite Nicco Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas146(Cal),95CWN197
Ruma Pal, J. 1. The respondent filed an application for winding up Bengal Lamps Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'). The petition was admitted by an order dated March 6, 1990. An appeal was preferred against the order by the company. This application has been filed in the appeal for stay of the order dated March 6, 1990. More than two months after the filing of the appeal, a reference was made by the company under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') constituted under the Act. The reference has been registered by the secretary of the Board under regulation 19 of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Regulations, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), on June 25, 1990. These facts were brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit filed by the company.2. The only question to be determined is whether, under the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »