Kolkata Court July 1994 Judgments
Manick Chand Jajodia Vs. Lalchand Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT402(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, filed by the plaintiff-respondent, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs and odd. In that suit, before the service of summons, an application was made by the plaintiff for a judgment on admission. Such application, which was purportedly under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was contested by the appellant and another defendant by filing affidavits-in-opposition. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 21st December, 1993, decreed the suit partly, on admission, for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs.2. From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the learned Trial Judge, in granting the prayer of the plaintiff for a decree on admission, relied upon Annexures 'B' to 'J' and Annexure 'M' to the plaintiff's application. On careful reading of the said judgment of the learned Trial Judge, such a decree on admission appears to have been based on the following reasons and findings:-(i) The supplementary agree...
Tag this Judgment!Melluish (inspector of Taxes) Vs. B. M. I (No. 3) Ltd. Melluish (inspe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR236(Cal)
DILLON L. J. These proceedings involve five taxpayer companies, B. M. I (No. 3) Ltd. B. M. I (No. 6) Ltd. B. M. I (No. 9) Ltd. Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd. and Fitzroy Finance Ltd. They are members of a group of which the parent is Mercantile Group Plc., a company associated with Barclays Bank Plc. In relation to each of the five companies there is an appeal and a cross-appeal against a decision of Vinelott J. given on 27 January 1994 [1994] 2 W. L. R. 795. He had before him appeals by the Crown from decisions of the special commissioners in respect of each of the five companies. For the purposes of this judgment it is unnecessary to draw any distinction between an of the five companies; the issues are the same. It is also immaterial that in the cases of four of the companies the appeals to this court are by the Crown and the cross-appeals are by the companies, while in the case of the fifth company the appeal is by the company and the cross-appeal is by the Crown.The esse...
Tag this Judgment!Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Maharaj Vs. Sri Bhakti Hriday Mangal Maharaj and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT194(HC)
Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, J.1. The present revisional application is directed against an order passed by the 6th Court of the Assistant District Judge at Alipore dated 7.7.94 in Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 1993, confirming the Order No. 19 dated 2.1.1993 passed by the 4th Munsif at Alipore in Title Suit No. 451 of 1991.2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Nirmalya Mohan Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has been permitted to correct the cause title of the revisional petition by way of abundant caution and necessary surplusage.3. The connected suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the amount mentioned in the three accounts delineated in the schedule attached to the plaint and also for an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from operating the said accounts. After filing of the suit, a petition for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been pressed for hearing in aid of the s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Nirmal Kumar Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Cal25
ORDER1. This revisional application against Order No. 15 dated 3rd June, 1994 passed by the Munsif, 2nd Court at Baruipur in Execution Case No. 22 of 1993 is taken up for hearing which at the motion stage has seriously been opposed by Mr. Dasgupta appearing on behalf of the Caveator. Mr. Das, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has made his submission by drawing attention to this Court to some of the annexure annexed to the petition from which he submits that the other decree-holders are not objectors with regard to continuation of consumption of electricity through the existing pole situated on the pathway which is a private one forming part of the suit property. According to Mr. Das, the same should be taken note either as a subsequent event or a changed circumstance and the executing court without determining the same properly should not have passed the impunged order.In support of the submission Mr. Das has referred to a decision of our High Court reported in : AIR19...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Roy Vs. Anjana Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT205(HC),I(1995)DMC39
Amal Kumar Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioner Rabindra Nath Roy had married the opposite party No. 2 Anjana Roy sometime in 1960 and in 1969, the petitioner filed a suit against her for restitution of conjugal rights on the allegation that she had left the matrimonial home without any just cause. This suit was decreed ex-parte on the 26th February, 1970 and as the said opposite party did not comply with it, the petitioner brought a suit for dissolution of marriage which was decreed also ex-parte on the 12th March, 1976. About 16 years thereafter, sometime in ly92 the said opposite party started a proceeding against the petitioner under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure claiming a sum of Rs. 500/- per month on account of maintenance, which is now pending in the second Court of Judicial Magistrate at Durgapur being Misc. Case No. 153/92. The present petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for dismissal of the case on the ground that the present opposite party having b...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rabindra Nath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-21-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC91
A.K. Chatterjee, J. 1. The petitioner Rabindra Nath Roy had married the Opposite Party No. 2 Anjana Roy sometime in 1960 and in 1969, the petitioner filed a suit against her for restitution of conjugal rights on the allegation that she had left the matrimonial home without any just cause. This suit was decreed ex-parte on the 26th February, 1970 and as the said opposite party did not comply with it, the petitioner brought a suit for dissolution of marriage which was decreed also ex-parte on the 12th March, 1976. About 16 years thereafter, sometime in 1992 the said opposite party started a proceeding against the petitioner under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure claiming a sum of Rs. 500/- per month on account of maintenance, which is now pending in the Second Court of judicial Magistrate at Durgapur being Misc. Case No. 153/92. The present petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for dismissal of the case on the ground that the present opposite party having been ...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Kumar Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1985
ORDERRuma Pal, J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ application is criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of a First Information Report (referred to as FIR). The FIR No. 76/93 was recorded on a complaint by the writ of the petitioner No. I being the respondent No. 10 herein. In the FIR it has been said :-'The accused person subjected the complaint to physical and mental torture in furtherances (sic) of their common intention and also committed criminal breach of trust in respect of gold ornaments and valuable articles belonging to the complainant which were entrusted to the accused persons at the above noted date, time and place.'The FIR has been prepared on the basis of the statement of the respondent No. 10 which was recorded in Bengali on 16-6-93. The statement roughly translated reads as follows:'My name is Bhaswati Mukherjee. My father's name is late Dulal Chandra Bhattacharjee. My father's house is at P. 150 B CIT R-9 Scheme, Kankurgachi, Calcutta 54. I am 28 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Bibuti Bhusan Nandy Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1994
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT305(HC)
Basudev Panigrahi, J.1. The appellant called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment passed by the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Howrah in S.C.T. No. 131 of 1984 dated on 28.8.86 convicting the appellant under Section 7(i)(a)(ii) of the E.C. Act for violation of the provisions of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and directing him to undergo sentence of S.I, for four months and pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer a further period of S.I. for one month.2. The skeletal picture of the prosecution story narrated in the judgment is that on 27.9.84 a raiding party consisting of P.W. 4 Santosh K. Chakrafoorty, P.W. 5 Brojomohan Sengupta and P.W. 1 Bholanath Mondal, raided the business premises of the appellant's (hereinafter be called as accused) firm M/s. Progressive Kerosene Agency situated at 248, Panchanantala Road, P.S. Howrah. At that time they found that the accused Karu Das (since discharged) was present. On demand by the raiding party, he failed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Cal367
ORDER1. An order was made on 27-11- 1989 by Justice U.C. Banerjee allowing instalments to the Company and further giving liberty to the petitioner to apply in case of default.2. By another order dated 10-9-1990 passed by Justice Prabir Kumar Majumdar instalment were again allowed to the Company for payment of the dues of the petitioning creditor. By the said order dated 10-9-1990 it was, inter alia, provided that in default of making payment in the manner as indicated in the said order, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply for further directions.3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been defaults in payment of the instalments as directed by the aforesaid order though some payments were made. It has also been submitted on behalf ofthe petitioner that in view of the defaults, the petitioner has become entitled to seek further directions in the matter.4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Company has not disputed the defaults nor has he fil...
Tag this Judgment!Dunlop India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Arun Chandra Sinha, Assistant Commissio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Cal)201,[1995]211ITR79(Cal)
Ruma Pal J.1. The subject-matter of the challenge in this writ application is a complaint filed under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to as 'the Act'). The assessment year in question is 1984-85. Cognizance has been taken of the complaint by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, and the proceedings have been numbered as Case No. C/1286 of 1992 against the accused. Each of the petitioners including the petitioner-company is an accused in the case.2. The background of the facts leading to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the writ petitioners briefly stated is as follows :On December 5, 1983, the petitioner-company filed a writ application (C. R. No. 12099/(W) of 1/983), inter alia, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 43B of the Act. A rule was issued and an interim order was passed restraining the respondent authorities from applying the provisions of Section 43B of the Act with regard to the assessment of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »