Kolkata Court February 1994 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.
Himansu Sekhar Rana Vs. Smt. Tapati Rana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Cal110
ORDERS. K. Mookherjee, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against a decree of dismissal, passed in a matrimonial suit, arising out of application under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, instituted by the husband against the wife.2. The admitted facts are that the marriage was on 13-5-82, though registered on 15-5-82. The wife left the matrimonial home on 26-4-83.3. It was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner husband that his sister was married to the brother of the wife, their matrimonial life was not happy and ultimately the said sister was driven out of her matrimonial home. She started residing with the husband/petitioner. Protest against cruelty of sister by the wife's family members enraged the wife; the wife started to ill-treat the petitioner and ultimately left the house on 26-4-1983, as stated.4. Wife's defence was that the petitioner's sister, after leaving her matrimonial home and after coming back to her brother's house, instiga...
Bensal Tea Warehouse and anr. Vs. Falakata Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT363(HC),98CWN1067
1. The appeal has come up before us for admission under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on being mentioned, on behalf of the appellants. Since there was a Caveat, copy of the proposed application in connection with the appeal for interim order as also the supplementary affidavits, which we direct, would form part of the said application, had been served on the learned Advocate filing the Caveat and, accordingly the caveators are represented by their learned Advocate before us at the time of hearing of the appeal for admission and the application.2. We have heard out the appeal and the application together after admitting the appeal.3. Since, admittedly, the application for injunction is pending consideration by the Trial Court upon contest, we proposed to hear out the First Miscellaneous Appeal and the connected application for interim order together finally and the learned counsel, representing the parties, have indicated their 'No objection' to such a procedure. We ...
Bimal Kanti Sarkar Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT414(HC)
Nisith Kumar Batabyal, J.1. This revisional case arises out of an application under Section 401 xead with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the charges framed under Sections 420/468/471/409 of the I.P.C. in Special Court Case No. 3 of 1984 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 11 dated 15-6-1977 pending before the learned Judge, Jalpaiguri Special Court.2. The petitioner was appointed as L.D. Clerk in the office of the S.P., Jalpaiguri in 1962. By an order dated 17-6-1977 of the D.I.G. of Police, Jalpaiguri Range he was suspended from service in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 11 dated 15-6-77 under Sections 420/468/471/409 of the I.P.C. He was released on bail on 25-8-77. For about four years, Police could not submit any report in final form. So by order dated 22-12-81 the learned Magistrate discharged the petitioner and he resumed his duties on 5-4-1984. Kotwali P.S. Case No. 11 dated 15-6-77 was sent to the Special Court, Jalpaiguri as per order of the S.P., Jalpaiguri an...
Jagdish Prasad Jaiswal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1994
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT352(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. This writ petition in my opinion should be disposed of in limine as the point is a short one of law only. I shall explain why it is only that.2. The petitioner was an Indian national residing abroad and returned to India on 9th November, 1993.3. On the 20th August 1992 he had bought a Mercedes Benz car in the United Kingdom paying a price of 80/90 thousand D. M. The car was registered in his favour on the 16th October, 1992. According to the public notice dated 26-6-1992 annexed at page 24 of the Writ Petition, an importation of a car is permitted under certain circumstances which is otherwise in the negative list.4. We need not enter into the other conditions for it suffices for our purpose to mention one of those conditions which is that 'the car has been in the use of the importer for more than a year prior to his return to India'.5. It is the admitted position that for the year prior to the return to India, though the car had been bought and registered in t...
Lilavati Devi Alias Lilavati Sharma Vs. M/S. KelvIn Jute and Co. Ltd
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Cal224,98CWN993
ORDERN. K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heardthe Id. Advocates for parties and perused the record.2. The landlord-petitioner by this revision challenged order No. 78 dated 21st day of July, 1992 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 113 of 1985, allowing the Tenant's --Defendant's application under Order 18, Rule 2(4) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. The short background of the case is that the Opposite Party was a Tenant regarding 3rd floor at Premises No. P-545, Lake Road Extension, Calcutta-700029, at a monthly rental of Rs. 750/- on the basis of a Registered Lease dated 19th day of June, 1964 for a period of 21 years commencing from 1st day of June, !964 and expiring on 31st day of May, 1985.4. The owner-landlord brought the aforesaid suit in the 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge, Alipore, for eviction of the said tenant-defendant from the suit premises on the ground of default, for breach of terms of lease on the ground that c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Cal)342,[1994]208ITR616(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest payment could not be disallowed for investment in shares as per provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when such shares were not used as stock-in-trade but were acquired simply for the purpose of acquiring controlling interest in the companies concerned ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that investment in shares was the admitted business for the assessee when the activity in such investment was only to purchase shares for acquisition of controlling interest of companies and had not earned any income (except director's fees) by such vocation ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. This reference relates to the income-tax assessment of the...
Orient Beverages Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)122CTR(Cal)126,[1994]208ITR509(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated June 26, 1990, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1983-84. In the affidavit-in-opposition the following reasons for reopening the assessment have been disclosed : 'The original assessment was made in this case on December 15, 1986, on a total loss of Rs. 2,14,025 only. In the assessment, there were wrong deductions allowed for provision of interest of Rs. 5,19,486 on unpaid municipal tax liability as debited prior to the same being quantified/levied by the Calcutta Corporation. Add. excise duty for Rs. 11,34,704 was also wrongly allowed as deduction, although such liability was ascertained subsequent to 1983-84 assessment year. Thirdly, expenses of Rs. 12,46,235 only relating to earlier years but merged with the claim for current expenses (as certified by the relevant audi...
Gopal Chandra Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT63(HC),(1995)ILLJ339Cal
Susanta Chatterjee, J.1. The present writ petition at the instance of the petitioner Gopal Chandra Ghosh claiming to be a helper-cum-trailer driver of Teesta Mechanical Division, Siliguri under care of Executive Engineer, Teesta Mechanical Division, Department of Irrigation & Waterways, Government of West Bengal seeks relief :- (a) A writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or orders' and/or direction or directions be issued commanding the respondents and/ or each of them and/or their servants, agents or assigns to act and proceed in accordance with law by not giving any effect or further effect to the impugned Memo No. 6549/121-10/A dated 18th December 1989 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical and Electrical Circle, Irrigation and Waterways Directorate, Government of West Bengal and by considering the selection of the petitioner to the scale of pay Rs. 300-10-400-15-565-20-685/- settled for the post of tractor-cum-trailer driver on ...
Black Dimond Beverages Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1994
Reported in: (1994)50ITD118(Kol.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner of lncome-tax, dated 19-3-1990 passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a public limited company. It manufactures aerated drinks, such as Thumps Up, Limca etc. under franchise. The unit was in Taratola. The accounts of the company were maintained from 1st July to the 30th June the next year. During the accounting year ended 30-6-1984, the assessee set up a new unit for bottling aerated drinks at Dankuni. In respect of this new unit, the assessee maintained accounts from 1-7-1984 to 30-9-1984. The accounting year of the company was consequently changed from 30-6-1984 to 30-9-1984. The commercial production in the Dankuni Unit started on 28-9-1984 as per the Chairman's statement to the shareholders on 18-1-1986.3. In the return filed in respect of the assessment year 1985-86 for the period 1-7-1983 to 30-9-1984, the assessee adjusted the loss arising in the Dankuni Unit's accounts against the pro...
Mrs. K. Saroja Nakshatri Vs. Sadasukh Kabra and Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Cal80,(1995)1CALLT27(HC)
ORDER1. The instant application has been made by the judgment debtor under Order 41, Rule 6 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 41, Rule 6 provides as hereunder:-- '6(1) Where an order is made for the execution of a decree from which an appeal is pending, the Court which passed the decree shall, on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant, require security to be taken for the requisition of any property which may be or has been taken in execution of the decree or for the payment of the value of such property and for the due performance of the decree or order of the Appellant Court, or the Appellate Court may for like cause direct the Court which passed the decree to take such security. (2) Where an order has been made for the sale of immoveable property in execution of a decree, and an appeal is pending from such decree, the sale shall, on the application of the judgment-debtor to the Court which made the order, be stayed on such terms as to giving security or otherwise as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »