Kolkata Court February 1991 Judgments
Remington Rand of India Ltd. Vs. Howrah Mills Ltd. and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Cal277,(1991)2CALLT5(HC)
ORDERMonoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgmentand order dated April 15, 1988 passed in C.R. No. 10801 (W) of 1985 whereby a learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by Howrah Mills Company Limited, the respondent No. 1 herein, and quashed an order of requisition dated July 17, 1985 made under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 ('Act' for short). By that order, the Additional District Magistrate, Howrah, requisitioned a land owned by the respondent No. 1 and in occupation of Messrs. Remington Rand of India Limited, the appellant herein, for the purpose of providing proper facilities for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for creating employment opportunities to the people. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under.2. By a registered deed dated September 16, 1959, the respondent No. I granted lease of a part of its premises, where it runs a j...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan B. Samtani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR370(Cal)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts, inter alia, leading to this reference as appears from the statement of case are as follows :The assessee is an individual. Shipping Bill No. AEP 235, dated January 6, 1973, relating to two packages, on account of the State Trading Corporation of Sikkim, was presented at the Calcutta Airport along with two cases booked under Air Way Bill No. 061-11947854 061-11947854 for shipment by BOAC against shipping documents. The customs authorities had reason to suspect that the packages contained articles other than those described in the shipping bill. On June 8, 1973, the packages were opened in the presence of the assessee and they were found to contain a bronze idol of Nataraja and its pedestal whereas the description of the packages was as 'unaccompanied personal effects of His Majesty the Chogyal B. T. Namgyal of Sikkim.' The statement of the assessee was recorded. The assessee testified under his signature that it was done by him as a representative of t...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemat Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Maharaj Vs. Bhakti Lalit Giri Maharaj Sr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT450(HC)
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 21st December, 1990 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 610 of 1889 passed by Sri S. Chakraborty, Additional District Judge, 12th Court, Alipore by which the appellant who was respondent No. 3 therein was directed to maintain status quo till the hearing of the Misc. Appeal and the appellant was further directed not to proceed with the special meeting of the Governing body scheduled to be held on 28th December, 1990 until further orders.2. The facts of this case, in short, relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows :-The Sree Chaitanya Gaudiya Math (hereinafter referred to as the said Math) is a Society under the Registration of Societies Act having its registered office at 35, Satish Mukherjee Road, Calcutta. There are Rules and Regulations for the management of the said Math and the appellant is the President Acharya of the Governing Body. The Governing body of the said Math on the basis certain allegations d...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Harbhajan Singh Hanspal and ors. Vs. Mrs. Beena Kumari Mehra and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT133(HC),[1992]195ITR39(Cal)
M. Mallick, J. 1. The petitioners who are the defendants in Title Suit No. 61 of 1984 pending in the court of the Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South), have moved this revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order of amendment passed by the learned trial judge allowing the plaintiff/ opposite party's application for amendment of the plaintFacts which are necessary for disposal of this amendment petition may be stated as follows :2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed the present suit for partition in April, 1984, against the original defendant who is dead and now substituted on her by the present petitioners for partition of the suit property claiming that the suit property belonged to Mrs. Harnam Kaur and the opposite party and the original defendant being the two daughters of Harnam Kaur had inherited the said property in equal shares.3. The original defendant, on entering appearance, filed a written statement ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Bhaskar Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: [1993]202ITR612(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76, the following questions of law have been referred to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, under the proviso to Section 5(1A), the raising of the exemption limit beyond Rs. 1,50,000 could be made only if the assets referred to in Sections 5(1)(xv) and 5(1)(xvi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, exceed Rs. 1,50,000 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the house property at 7/1, Queens Park or a part thereof can be said to belong to the assessee within the meaning of Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, where the assessee, admittedly, has only a life interest therein ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee, an individual, held Government securities on the respective valuation dates as follows : Valuation dateAmount(Rs.)31-3-197247,26031-3-197350,02031-3-197430,00031-3-197...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Md. Samin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1691
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. In connection with Jorasanka P. S. Case No. 402 dated 7-8-90 registered Under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (subsequently converted to one Under Sections 302/34 of the IPC), the opposite party and four others were arrested on 25-9-90 and forwarded to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta ('Magistrate' for short) on 26-9-90. By orders made from time to time, the learned Magistrate authorised their detention, initially in police custody for twelve days and thereafter in jail custody for fifteen days at a stretch awaiting report, in final form, of investigation. The last of such orders was made by the learned Magistrate on 17-12-90 authorising detention of the accused persons in jail custody till 31-12-90. In the meantime on 21-12-90 to be precise the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the five accused persons and on receipt thereof, the learned Magistrate passed the following order on that day:--'Received C....
Tag this Judgment!Minoo Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT534(Cal)
ORDERRuma Pal, J.1. The petitioner manufactures Biscuits. The petitioner is claiming to be a registered Small Scale Industries Unit and a Small Scale Industry within the meaning of the provisions of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951. According to the petitioner, its liability to pay Central Excise Duty in respect of the biscuits manufactured by it is at the concessional rate of 5% ad valorem.2. On 30th January 1987 there was a search and seizure at the petitioner's factory by the Central Excise Officer. Various documents and other materials were seized. Two statements were recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The first was a confessional statement by one Sunil Agarwalla, one of the directors of the petitioner to the effect that goods valued at Rs. 10 lakhs had been manufactured and cleared during the period August 1986 to 12th January 1987 without keeping any accounts in respect thereof. It was al...
Tag this Judgment!Ashim Ranjan Das Vs. Sm. Bimla Ghosh and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Cal44,(1991)1CALLT422(HC),1991(1)CHN229
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 512 of 1989 by the 10th Court of the Additional District Judge,Alipore.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction. The disputed property belongs to four brothers, namely, Hrishikesh, Rash Behari, Bibhuti and Nanilal. Hrishikesh purchased 1/5th share of Nanilal by virtue of a deeddated 21-1-69. Hrishikesh died on 10-4-75 leaving behind him the plaintiffs in the suit as his legal heirs and successors. Rashbehari died leaving four sons and two daughters. Bibhuti Ghosh is alive. The disputed property is an undivided family dwelling house of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers. Bibhuti transferred his interest by virtue of an Indenture of lease dated 19-6-89 in favour of the defendant-Dream Land Apartments. Similarly, by virtue of another deed the heirs of Rashbehari transferred their interest by virtue of a deed of lease on the same date in favour of the defendant. Both these deeds were intended ...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: [1994]205ITR600(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J. 1. The point involved in this writ petition is very short. The facts, however, are complex. In order to appreciate the issue involved it is necessary to recount the facts in some detail. 2. On June 4, 1966, the petitioner entered into a contract with Hindusthan Motors Ltd. for sale of 932,617 at the rate of Rs. 13.33 : 1. This was to cover contracts for import of goods which had been entered into by Hindusthan Motors. On the same day, the petitioner entered into three separate contracts with the Reserve Bank, Chartered Bank and theBank of India for purchase of foreign exchange totalling 832,000, The balance of the 932,617, namely, 100,617, was to be met by the petitioner from its own resources. 3. These purchases were also made by the petitioner from the said bank at the rate of Rs. 13.33 : 1. 4. On June 6, 1966, the rupee was devalued and the rate of exchange became Rs. 21 : 1. 5. Between the petitioner and Hindusthan Motors, the petitioner converted the import bills rais...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Amarendra Nath Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)2CALLT295(HC)
1. Right to speedy public trial has not been expressly concerned as a fundamental right in our constitution. But it has now been settled beyond doubt by a series of decisions of our Apex Court that the same right is fully covered by and our Apex court that the same right is fully covered by and comprised in Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing non-deprivation of life and personal liberty 6ave according to procedure established by law. It may be that what was thought to be necessary to be articulated specifically in the 18th century American constitution is no longer so necessary to be expressed in words in this century because of the progress of human society and the change of universal outlook towards the human rights. For example, the freedom of press, which has been expressly conferred by American constitution, has not been so expressly conferred by our constitution, though it is beyond doubt that Article 19 read with Article 21 would obviously comprise that right also.2. If ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »