Kolkata Court February 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.
Circular Investment Trust Private Limited and anr. Vs. the Calcutta Mu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT460(HC)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. This, is an application seeking to challenge a refused of sanction on the part of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, the said refusal being communicated by the impugned document (being Annexure 'B' to the petition) dated 29.3.1980/16.4.1990. By the said refusal of sanction the Municipal authorities have called upon the writ petitioners to submit a registered undertaking for non-eviction of the tenants as stated in the application form.2. In the application form lodged by the writ petitioners, under item 26, the writ petitioners had put in the particulars, of the tenants who are now admittedly in occupation and the petitioners had also stated that registered undertaking would be filed. Particulars of that prospective undertaking were somewhat vague in the application that was put in. In the writ petition the petitioners have asked for relief from such a statement made by them in the application.3. In my opinion, what the writ petitioners stated in the applicati...
Trio Marketing Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: 1994LC700(Calcutta),1992(57)ELT249(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioners have imported HAKKO BRAND SCALP VEIN SETS (hereinafter referred to as the goods). The goods arrived in Calcutta in August 1990. The petitioners have described the goods as intravenous cannula and tubing for long term use in their Bill of Entry. The petitioners claim that the said goods are wholly exempt from customs duty being covered by Item 19 under the heading 'Life Saving Equipment' contained in the Customs Notification No. 208/81 (hereinafter referred to as the first Notification).2. The respondents have refused to permit the petitioner to clear the said goods and have claimed customs duty at the rate of 40% ad valorem.3. It was agreed that no affidavits need be filed but that the Court could determine the questions involved in this case on the basis of the documents produced.4. The Notification No. 208-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 provides for a general exemption of the whole of the customs duty and additional duty leviable under the First Schedule and Sec...
Sripatinath Neogi and Another Vs. Sm. Ira Rani Sur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Cal60,(1991)1CALLT413(HC)
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal Nos. 213 of 1976 and 218 of 1976 by the Second Court of Subordinate Judge, Hooghly, arising out of Title SuitNo. 177 of 1973 of the first court of Munsif atChandernagore.2. This is a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction.3. The plaint case is that the plaintiffs and defendant are related as brothers and sister. Their father died intestate on 19-10-71 and the mother died on 10-2-73, leaving behind the parties to the suit and other two daughters. It is uncontroverted that the parties are governed by Hindu Law. The disputed property is a dwelling house and land appurtenant thereto which belonged to the father of the parties. The plaintiffs have been enjoying the entire house with their family members. The defendant who was residing with her husband at Chittaranjan came to the dwelling house to attend the Sradh Ceremony of the mother of the parties and was accommodated in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR818(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 specially when the assessee itself claimed that the excise duty liability was a determined one, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that disputing the central excise duty and sales tax liabilities would not mean that they had become ascertained liabilities ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the disputed central excise duty and sales tax liabilities were contingent liabilities, not liable to be deducted while computing the capital of the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. In our view, the questions are not happily framed. The following question, in our view, will bring out the real controversy and we refra...
Raj Kumar Kedia Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1991
Reported in: 1991(55)ELT481(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The question to be determined is when a Notification issued under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) becomes effective i.e. whether on the day of its issue or on the date it is printed in the Official Gazette or on the date when the Official Gazette is available for public sale.2. In this case certain type of pulses was imported by the petitioner from Thailand by ship. The ship reached the Sandheads on 16-2-1987 and arrived at the Calcutta Dock on 17-2-1987. At the time of presentation of the Bills of Entry on 17-2-1987 the Customs Authorities claimed that the said pulses were liable to duty @ 25% by virtue of a Notification bearing No. 40/87-Cus., dated 4-2-1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said Notification). The said Notification amended an earlier Notification bearing No. 129/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 by which pulses of the type imported by the petitioner were completely exempted from Customs duty. Upon so being intimated by the Customs Autho...
Sk. Md. Ismail Vs. Sk. Anwar Ali and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Cal391
1. This appeal is against an appellate Judgment and decree passed by the Second Court of Sub Judge, Hooghly, confirming a judgment and decree of the Second Court of Munsif, Serampur. The facts of the case out of which the appeal arose may be briefly stated as follows:--2. One Sk. Abdul Matin, the defdt. No. 1 in the Original Suit in the Munsifs Court sold the disputed property to the respondent-plaintiff Sk. Anwar AH on 3-8-1971 for a consideration of Rs. 500/ - and executed a sale deed, but the registration of the deed was deferred at the instance of the said defdt. till 10-8-1971. On 10-8-1971, however the said defdi. No. 1 refused to register the document. On 12-8-1971 the respondent presented thedeed for registration before the Sub-Registrar, but defdt. No. 1 did not appear before the Sub-Registrar in spite of service of notice upon him. The Sub-Registrar, concerned ultimately refused to register the deed on 20-9-1971. An appeal was filed before the District Registrar against the o...
Ashok Kumar Poddar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR132(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for the assessment year 1973-74, the following questions have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that by his order dated May 22, 1980, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner determined the value of the gifted property at Rs. 5,45,700 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the valuation made by the Gift-tax Officer by capitalising the income by the multiplier 13,414?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee bequeathed his one-sixth share in certain leasehold land and structures thereon subject to the mortgage in favour of the United Bank of India to Smt. Shradha Poddar, a minor. This gift was made under a deed of gift dated June 26, 1972. The assessee filed a return declaring the value of the gift at Rs. 8,549 only. The Gift-tax Officer...
Sri Sri Kubereswar Mahadeva Thakur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR649(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions of law have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1971-72 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation of the order of remand dated January 29, 1983, passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was bound to act within the four corners of the directions of the Tribunal and in not allowing the assessee to raise the question whether, in view of the notification dated January 6, 1970, by which the property in question stood vested in the State of West Bengal from that date, no transfer of property took place within the relevant accounting year and as such the capital gain, if any, exigible to tax, could not be assessed in the relevant assessment year? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true interpretation...
Nebubala Sardar Vs. Abdul Aziz Baidya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Cal402,(1991)2CALLT155(HC),1991(1)CHN318,95CWN1139
1. The Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 770 of 1977 by the 3rd Court of the Additional District Judge, Alipore, 24 Parganas.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale.3. The plaint case is that the defendant filed Title Suit No. 313 of 1971 against the plaintiff and others. The suit ended in a compromise. One of the terms of the petition of compromise was that the plaintiff would pay a sum of Rs. 550/- to the defendant by Chaitra, 1381 B.S. and the defendant in turn would execute a Deed of Sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. The defendant did not execute the Sale Deed in spite of tender of a sum of Rs. 550/- by the plaintiff. The defendant refused to accept the money and execute the deed. Time was not the essence of the contract. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the defendant did not deliberately discharge his obligation under...
Kassem Gharami and ors. Vs. Niamat Gharami and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)2CALLT118(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. The petitioner-defendants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 19/86 rejecting the petitioners' additional written statement and counter-claim on the ground that the counter-claim is barred by limitation and that the petitioners have not paid the requisite court fee for the said counter-claim.2. Being aggrieved, the defendants-petitioners have moved this Court in revision contending inter alia that the additional written statement and the counter-claim filed by the petitioners have given the date on which the cause of action arose as 24.12.87 and when admittedly this additional written statement and the counter-claim were filed within three years thereof, the counter-claim could not be rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that when the petitioners appeared in this Court on 24.4.86 and prayed for time to file written statement, they can be said to be well acquainted with the facts...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »