Kolkata Court January 1991 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.
Alo Rani Banerjee and Others Vs. Smt. Malati Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Cal302,96CWN1248
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned subordinate Judge, 6th, Court, Ali-pore in Title Appeal No. 241 of 1973 setting aside those of the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Sealdah passed in T. S. No. 475 of 1958.2. The plaintiff-appellants filed the said suit for declaration of right of way over the disputed land and for injunction. The plaintiffs' case is that C. S. Plot No. 395 of Mouza Dum Dum originally belonged to one Biman Jyoti Majumder who sold 3 cottahs each to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and 4 cottahs and 4 chittaks to the defendant out of the said plot on the same day i.e. 16-6-51 after setting apart in the middle of the plot a common passage 8 feet in width and about 128 feet in length connecting Municipal Office Lane on the west and Narsingha Avenue in the east. The said common passage is the only way for obtaining access from the plaintiffs plot to Municipal Office Lane and Narsingha Avenue. The defendant later purchased from Dutta Majumdar ...
Basudeb Dey Sarkar Vs. Smt. Chhaya Dey Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Cal399,(1991)1CALLT342(HC),1991(1)CHN366,II(1991)DMC575
1. The only short question of law we are called upon to answer in this second appeal is whether the wife has a right of residence in the house of her husband when the husband has wilfully parted with his interest therein in favour of a third person and whether she can be evicted from such house as a licensee by the alienee.2. The undisputed facts of this case are the plaintiff-appellant Shri Basudeb Dey Sarkar is the husband's brother or Smt. Chhaya Dey Sarkar the wife defendant-respondent. The plaintiff-appellant brought this suit claiming to be the absolute owner of an undivided moity share in respect of a partly two storeyed and partly single storeyed brick built house and that his brother Gourhari Dey Sarkar the husband of the defendant-appellant was the owner of other undivided half share in the suit premises. It was alleged that due to family troubles the brother of the plaintiff i.e., the husband of the defendant-respondent was living apart and the appellant was living in one ro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagadish Prosad Goenka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR15(Cal)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. The assessee is a director of M/s. Duncan Bros, and Co. Ltd. The assessment year involved in the case is 1982-83.2. As per the terms of an agreement with M/s. Duncan Bros, and Co. Ltd., the assessee was entitled to rent-free accommodation. The assessee was occupying the premises No. 19, Belvedere Road, Calcutta-27.3. The assessee explained in his letter dated March, 21, 1985, that he was a tenant in the said house. He was also a whole time director of M/s. Duncan Bros, and Co. Ltd., 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. In accordance with the agreement with the said company, the assessee had to be provided with rent-free accommodation. Therefore, the said company, M/s. Duncan Bros, and Co. Ltd., paid rent on behalf of the assessee to the landlord of the said premises. The monthly rent was Rs. 1,900.4. He, accordingly, computed the perquisite value of the accommodation as per Section 17(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Shyama Devi Dalmia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)103CTR(Cal)360,[1992]194ITR114(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to this court for the assessment year 1982-83 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow deduction under the second proviso to Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the portion of property used by the bank ?'2. The facts in brief are that, in the assessment year 1982-83, the asses-see claimed deduction of Rs. 6,000 out of the house property income under the second proviso to Section 23(1) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim of the assessee as, according to him, four floors of the building stood let out to the bank and were not utilised for 'residential purposes'. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Income-tax Officer.3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred a second appe...
Soorajmull Nagarmull Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: [1991]190ITR418(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65, 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 right in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to set off the long-term capital loss relating to the assessment year 1959-60 beyond the period of four years ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are in a narrow compass. The assessee is a partnership firm which has been assessed in the status of an unregistered firm for the assessment year 1964-65. A long-term capital loss of Rs. 7,57,320 was assessed for the assessment year 1959-60, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee claimed that this loss should be set off against the long-term capital gains of Rs. 2,67,222 assessed in the assessment year 1964-65. The Income-tax Officer was of the view that the long-term...
S.P. Jaiswal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Cal)90,[1991]188ITR603(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79, 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 holding that extra shift depreciation allowance for triple shift working was not available to the assessee's approved hotel ?'2. The facts leading to this reference are stated hereinafter.3. The assessee is a private limited company and derived income from hotel business. The assessee's hotel is an approved one. According to the assessee, its hotel worked triple shift during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer extra shift depreciation allowance for triple shift working. This claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the assessee is entitled to extra depreciation allowance under sub-item (iii) of Item No. I...
Md. Murtaza Vs. Smt. Kausar Parvin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3202
ORDERSiba Prasad Rajkhowa, J.1. The petitioner has by this revisional application challenged the maintainability of a proceeding Under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short Code, read with Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986, hereinafter referred to as Act of 1986.2. The Opp. Party filed the petition Under Section 125(1) of the Code read with Section 3 of the Act of 1986 before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandanagar which was registered as Misc. Case No. 191 of 1989. She inter alia stated in that petition that she is the mother of Sanjiba and Sitara, 2 minor daughters aged about 4 1/2 and 2 1/2 years respectively and the O.P. is the father of the said minors. On 27-12-87 the husband of the petitioner and father of the said minor had divorced her and since then the said minors are residing under the care and custody of the petitioner at village Telinepara, P.S. Bhadreswar. The O.P./father since the date of divorce ha...
Union of India Vs. Abhoy Sarkar and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Cal242
ORDER1. This is an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award passed by Shri A. P. Bhattacharyya, the sole Arbitrator dated 2-5-1989.2.The facts are briefly as follows:--A contract for construction of platform wall, dismentaling of the old Station Building and other constructions between platforms Nos. 4A and 5 at Sealday Railway Station was given to the respondent by the petitioner representating the Eastern Railway. The contract was entered into on 17th March, 1978 after the respondent's tender was accepted by the letter dated February 3, 1978. The work was scheduled for completion within six months. The agreement in question incorporates schedules 'A' and 'C'. The Schedule 'A' is the demolition work, Schedule 'C' is a construction of platform wall and Schedule 'B' included works other than a Schedule 'C', The rate agreed upon the Schedule 'B' was 130% of the above the schedule rate. The contract could not be completed according to the res...
National Standard Duncan Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR776(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79, the following questions have been referred to this court :'(1) Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not rendered invalid for the reason that the successor-Income-tax Officer (coming only at the stage of finalisation of the assessment) having not given an opportunity to the assessee asked for under the proviso to Section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?(2) Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the time taken in the proceedings under Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was required to be excluded and, as such, the assessment was not barred by limitation '2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee-company submitted a retur...
Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Iti Mukherjee @ Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: 95CWN1085,II(1991)DMC227
Bhattacharjee, J.1. A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed by the trial Court on merits as well as on the ground of the petition having been presented few days before the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage in contravention of the provisions of Section 14(1). My learned brother Banerjee, J. has, for the reasons stated in his judgment hereinafter, upheld the decision of the trial Judge on merits. While I respectfully agree with the view of Banerjee, J. that the petition has been rightly dismissed on merits and that the alleged cruelty by the wife has not been proved. I have my doubts as to whether the provisions of Section 14(1) prohibiting the entertainment of a petition for divorce before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage is that mandatory to require compliance with mathematical precis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »