Kolkata Court June 1994 Judgments
Hamida Ali and ors. Vs. Calcutta Telephones
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT125(HC)
Asok Kumar Chakravarty, J.1. This revisional application is directed 'against Order No. 64 dated 27th January, 1994 passed by the Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No. 3 of 1987.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of this revisional application are as follows :-The tenancy in question which comprises Room No. 70 in the second floor of premises no. 3A, Chowringhee Place, Calcutta-13 was held by the predecessors of the petitioners at a monthly rental of Rs. 163.50p. under Ranigunj Coal Association Ltd. On or about 23rd December, 1972, the said company transferred the said property to the Calcutta Telephones. Letter of attornment was issued. Since the inception of the tenancy the petitioners' predecessor had been paying the rent by issuing cheques up to the month of September 1987. On the 8th July, 1987 petitioners' predecessor received a notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (to be stated as 'the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Maina Devi Nahata Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: (1995)52ITD668(Kol.)
1. In this appeal by the assessee we are concerned with two grounds.The first is that the assessment is barred by limitation. The second is that even on merits the addition made is to be deleted.2. The appeal arises under these circumstances: The assessment was first completed on 28-3-1981 under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In that assessment an addition of Rs. 1 lakh was made under the head "Other sources". In the assessment order itself it is recorded that the assessment was being completed ex parte since there is no time to hear the assessee. There was an appeal to the CIT(A) who set aside the assessment and restored the same to the ITO. This order was passed on 31-5-1983. There was a further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal. The contention of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the CIT(A) should have deleted the addition instead of setting aside the assessment and restoring it to the ITO. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The order of the Trib...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Chowdhury and ors. Vs. New Era Fabrics Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT200(HC),99CWN114
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. The matter appeared before us for passing final order in the appeal in terms of the order passed by Their Lordships Ajit Kumar Sengupta (As His Lordship then was) and Nure Alam Chowdhury on 8.10.93. The appeal was against an order passed by the learned trial Judge. The writ application was filed by New Era Fabrics Limited and others inter alia, for a direction upon the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction to consider the sanction of the scheme for rehabilitation submitted by the said parties for revival of Dunbar Mills Ltd. and the copy of the scheme submitted by the writ petitioners was approved by the learned trial Judge and further directed handing over of the management and possession of the Dunbar Mills Ltd. to the petitioners therein. The Division Bench by the order dated 8.10.1993 set aside the order passed by the learned trial Judge and directed the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (referred to as BIFR) to the followin...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Overseas Private Limited Vs. Sri Sri Iswar Chinta Haran Shiv Thak ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT166(HC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. In May 1987, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant deity and 9 others as Shebaits/Trustees of the deity. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants Shebaits/Trustees approached the plaintiff for development of about 70 cottahs of land for construction of a multi-storeyed building and that after negotiations on 25th July 1986 an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants on the following terms :(a) That the plaintiff would develop about 70 cottahs of land out of about 92 cottahs of land at premises No. 8, Ekdalia Road, Calcutta 700 019, belonging to the defendant No. 11 deity after excluding about 24 cottahs of land within the temple compound ;(b) That the plaintiff would construct multi-storeyed residential buildings on the said 70 cottahs of land and that the existing buildings on the said 70 cottahs of land would be demolished at an appropriate stage in course of development;(c) That in consideration of the value of the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shaktigarh Textiles and
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: (1995)53ITD60(Kol.)
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow carry forward of assessed losses as per law in respect of the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 (aggregating in all to Rs. 93,02,292 and accompanied by the loss for the assessment year 1987-88 total amount comes to Rs. 1,04,80,560.2. The assessee's accounting year ended on 31-3-1987. The return of income was filed on 28-12-1987. In the return the assessee declared a loss of Rs. 11,78,263 for the year and also claimed carry forward of the unabsorbed losses and allowances determined in the earlier years, amounting to Rs. 93,02,292. The assessing officer completed the assessment on 30-11-1988 Under Section 143(1) of the Act. He determined the total loss, including the brought forward losses and allowances, at Rs. 1,04,80,560. He, however, made the following observations at the end of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tapas Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC350
A.K. Dutta, J.1. The instant Revisional Application by the petitioner-husband is directed against the orders dated 27.2.89, 5.1.91 and 21.9.91 passed by the Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate at Arambagh, District Hooghly, in Misc. Case No. 28/88 J.R. 2/89 before him on the grounds made out therein.2. The opposite-party No. 2-wife (hereinafter referred to as wife) had filed an application before Learned Magistrate against the petitioner-husband (hereinafter referred to as husband) for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shortened into Code) on the ground that the latter had been refusing and neglecting to maintain her. On the said application being filed, the Learned Magistrate had directed issue of notice by his order dated 16.7.88 upon the husband fixing a number of dates for service return. The service return not having been received, the Learned Magistrate by his order dated 4,1.89 had directed the wife to take steps for serving notice u...
Tag this Judgment!Subhas Chandra Dey and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Cal189,(1995)1CALLT374(HC),99CWN497
ORDER1. The facts involved in this writ petition inter alia are that the writ petitioners by registered partnership deed dated August 8, 1984 formed a partnership firm under the name and style of 'M/s. Suhas Chandra Dey and Kaberi Bose' in order to carry on business as M. R. Distributor having its office-cum-godown at Gourpara (Singher-bagan, P.S. and P.O. Chakdah, District Nadia).2. An agreement was executed between the petitioners and the respondent No. 5 (S.C.F. and S Kalyani) on behalf of the Governor of the State of West Bengal in connection with the distribution of foodstuff in the District of West Bengal. The aforesaid agreement was executed on 31st July, 1985.3. While functioning as M. R. Distributor, all on a sudden the petitioner was served with a communication being Memo No. 26/FS/Kly/92 dated 7th January, 1992 issued by the respondent No. 5 Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Kalyani, P.S. Kalyani, District Nadia, where-from it transpired that vide para 12 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Asis Maity and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Cal38
ORDER1. This writ petition is for issuance of writ of Mandamus against the respondents to recall, rescind and/or to withdraw the orders being dated May 30, 1992 and June 15, 1992, which are respectively appended as Annexures 'D' and 'E' to the writ petition. The writ petitioners applied to the West Bengal Board of Examination for admission to the Medical College in West Bengal scheduled to be held on 24th and 25th April, 1993. They duly appeared in the said examination but they were not supplied with adequate forms for admission to first year class of MBBS in Medical College on theground that the Governor of the State was pleased to decide that 22% of the total seats would be reserved for schedule castes students and 6% of the seats would be reserved for schedule tribes in different teaching institutions where MBBS/BDS courses are being prosecuted in different Medical/ Dental Colleges of the State. The petitioners put up a challenge with regard to both the Memos dated May 30, 1992 and ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Khalilur Rahaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1994
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT62(HC)
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. A short but important question of law that arises for determination in this revisional application is whether the saving clause as contained in Section 26(2) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 (in short 'Revenue Act') saves a pending proceeding for preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short 'Land Act') after amendment of the definition of 'Holding', as contained in Section 2(6) of the Land Act. This question has, however, already been decided by me in an earlier revisional application which is reported in 1994(Vol. II) CHN 35 (Md. Abdul Karim and Ors. v. Jitendra Nath Mondal and Ors). The same view was also expressed by another learned Judge of this Court in 94 CWN 335 (Jella Rahaman Mondal and Ors.v. Gelezam Bibi). But after hearing the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties and after considering the scheme and object of the Revenue Act in details and in depth, I feel inclined to express a view contrary to t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindusthan Motors Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR379(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in fact and in law in holding that the provision for leave pay liability should be treated as 'reserve' for the purpose of computation of capital under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964?'2. The assessment years involved are 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, for which the corresponding previous years were the financial years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84.3. The facts as stated by the Tribunal in the statement of facts were as under :The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment, while computing 'capital' relevant to the respective surtax assessment, did not consider leave pay liability as 'reserve' inasmuch as this liability was provided for meeting a known liability arising in future and, as such, it was only a provision and not a reserv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »