Kolkata Court April 1997 Judgments
Pralay Kumar Bose Vs. Smt. Shyama Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: II(1998)DMC19
S. Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by the husband against a decree of divorce on mutual consent passed on July 30,1987 by the District Judge, 24 Pgs. (S), Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 629 of 1986 in spite of a subsequent unwillingness expressed prior to the passing of a decree.2. The age long concept of a Hindu Marriage being an unbreakable marital tie of the so-called life partners is almost outdated by now. The dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been made possible within the ambit of law at the instance of either of the unwilling or aggrieved spouse but only on proof of certain established allegation being statutory ground as enumerated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The said Act did not earlier contemplate a situation when both the spouses (husband and wife) choose to go for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on mutual consent but of the late, in the year 1976 this probability necessitated for an enactment and accordingly, Section 13...
Tag this Judgment!Ananga Mohan Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: (1999)3CALLT397(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Both these writ application involving same questions of law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. A plot of land in Salt Lake was leased out to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners for a period of 999 years. The petitioner in W.P. No. 5291 (W) of 1997 has purchased the said lease by reason of a deed of assignment. The petitioner filed application for mutating his name. As he has not heard for a long time from the concerned authority, a writ petition was filed in this court, and N.K. Mitra. J, directed that the said application of the petitioner be considered. By reason of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 'H' to the writ application. Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, rejected the said application on the ground that in terms of clause 2(7) of the original lease deed as also the restrictive clauses contained in clauses 2(8) and 2(12) of the lease deed in respect of the lands in Sal...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Commercial Company Ltd. Vs. Purushottam Das Bangur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1335
S. Narayan, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff/appellant in F.M.A. No. 773 of 1996 for initiating a contempt proceeding against the defendants-respondents so as to punish and/ or suitably deal with under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 with reference to an Order dated June 4, 1996 passed by this Bench in the above mentioned appeal. In response to a show cause notice, issued on this application, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have affirmed their respective affidavit-in-opposition to which there 'was affidavits-in-reply also furnished on behalf of the petitioner.2. As alleged in the application, the Respondent's Contemners have willfully, deliberately and contumaciously violated the order dated June 4, 1-996, whereby the parties in the appeal were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit premises being portion of the premises No. 7, St. George's Gate Road, Calcutta more fully described in the schedule of the plaint in the suit touching the masonry boundary wall th...
Tag this Judgment!Sreepati Hosiery Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)64ITD170(Kol.)
1. This appeal is instituted by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 1991-92 on the following grounds : "1. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the Assessing Officer was wholly unjustified in treating Rs. 12,01,757 as the income for the assessment year 1991-92 and was wholly unjustified in including the same into the total income and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was wholly unjustified in confirming the said addition/action of the Assessing Officer and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the said amount or any part thereof could not be treated as income of your petitioner and could not be included into the total income of your petitioner for the assessment year 1991-92 and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly. 2. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances and the Central Excise Department having not accept...
Tag this Judgment!Rabanmahato and Others Vs. State and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal368
ORDER1. This case can be disposed of on a very short point. 2. It is claimed that some members of the Dimdiha Gram Panchayat under Purulia-I. Development Block, called upon the petitioner No. 1, who at the relevant time, was the Prodhan of the said Gram Panchayat, to convene a meeting for his removal. Actually, the removal of the Upa Pradhan the respondent No.2 was also sought, but since it is stated that the petitioner No.2 has since died, this petition is not being prosecuted on her behalf. Because the petitioner No.1 is alleged not to have called the meeting, the requisitionists themselves called the meeting in terms of S. 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act. 1973. This meeting called by the requsitionists was fixed for 6th April, 1994. It is claimed that it was attended by 13 members of the Gram Panchayat and that the motion for the removal of the Gram Panchayat i.e. the Petitioner No. 1 was carried out because the 13 members present in the meeting voted in favour of the motion. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Hope India Ltd. Vs. the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT312(HC)
Vinod Kumar Gupta, J.1. The question involved in this petition is about the liability of the petitioner to file Income Tax Return for the assessment year 1977-78.2. M/s. Poddar Udyog Limited, the present petitioner in this petition, has actually succeeded M/s. Hope India Limited, the petitioner who originally had filed this petition. M/s. Hope India Limited was the successor in interest of M/s. Hope Plantations Limited. M/s. Hope Plantations Limited by virtue of an agreement made on 22nd November, 1977 between itself and the Southern Indian Tea Estates Company, a company incorporated under the Companies Act of the United Kingdom and having its registered office in London, purchased the Indian tea business of M/s. Southern India Tea Estates Company limited (hereinafter referred to as the predecessor company). M/s, Hope Plantation Company (hereinafter referred to as the successor company) was incorporated as an Indian Company on 11th November, 1977. On 7th January, 1978, M/s. Hope Planta...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sanichari Devi Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT168(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. An application was hit upon by the writ petitioner appellant for a Mandamus, a Rule NISI, Prohibition and for other incidental reliefs which included amongst others an interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates from demolishing the structure at premises No. 3/1A, Maheswartala Road, P.S. Tangra, till the disposal of the rule.2. The profile of the controversy between the parties gives a wide and bold publicity of a crusade about the legality or otherwise of the impugned structure of the premises No. 3/1A, Tangra Road known as 3/1A, Mahaswartala Road, P.S. Tangra, came to both possessed and owned by the writ petitioner by a Deed of Exchange that executed between her, and Smt. Gita Devi dated 12th of January, 1993.3. While amplifying her claim in the injunction petition, she has most sedulously cultivated that she was effecting repairs of the premises which was in a state of disrepair but the respondents on being emboldened ...
Tag this Judgment!Asif HossaIn and ors. Vs. Inspector General, B.S.F. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1997
Reported in: 1998(59)ECC76
Samaresh Banerjea, J.1. The petitioners who are carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of 'Bengal Traders' in Chillies, Jeera, Black Peppers, Betel Nuts etc. at Dhuliyan, have challenged an order of detention and seizure of 64 quintals of Black Peppers from the godown of the petitioners situated at Anupnagar, Kanchantala, Kamat of Dhuliyan, by the respondents.2. It is the case of the petitioners that purchasing the goods from various places like Calcutta, Kerala ect. they store the same in their aforesaid godown and sell such articles in small lots from their retail shops situated at Dhuliyan Cinema Road, Dhuliyan in the district of Murshidabad. For the aforesaid business they possesses the requisite certificate from the concerned department of the Government of West Bengal and they also maintain their accounts and pay all taxes including income tax, sales tax etc. On 7th December, 1996 at about 6 P. M. some Border Security Force Personnel (hereinafter referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sunanda Bose and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR21(Cal)
Vinod Kumar Gupta, J.1. With regard to the estate left by the late Hena Roy Chowdhury, who died on March 51, 1975, a dispute has arisen between the parties regarding the value of the estate and the estate duty which the petitioners as the legal heirs of the deceased are liable to pay thereupon.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are liable to pay duty on the value as returned by them, i.e., Rs. 2,23,222.22, whereas the respondents have passed the impugned order whereby the estate duty has been levied on the two portions of the property valued at Rs. 2,71,500 and Rs. 1,90,000. This value was arrived at on the basis of the valuation report submitted by the valuation cell.3. The petitioners' short grievance is that while passing the impugned assessment order on June 25, 1987, the respondents totally ignored and overlooked the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, vide their Instruction No. 1758. This instruction was issued on 15/19th May, 1987. It means that as on ...
Tag this Judgment!Eureka Engineers Co-operative Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. Superintending ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Cal12
ORDERSatyabrata Sinha, J.1. Non issuance of tender form to the petitioners by the respondent led them to file this writ application for issuance of a writ of and/ or in the nature of mandamus directing the the respondents to issue tender forms in respect of the works' mentioned in Annexure 'A' and 'B' thereto.2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. Three notices inviting tender bearing No. NITs 3, 4 and 5 were issued. The petitioners applied for tender forms for works under serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of NIT-3, serial Nos. 1 to 6 of NIT-4 and serial No. 2 of NIT-5. The works mentioned in serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of NIT-3 are as follows :--'Serial No. 2 -- construction of cross drainage structure at 34.170 kms. of D.N.M.C. in P.S. Islampore, District tfttar Dinajpur. Estimated amount put to tender is Rs. 60,00,000/-. (50% of the amount is Rs. 30,00,000/-). Serial No. 3 -- Construction of cross drainage, structure at 34.90 kms. of D. N. M. C. in P. S.Islampore, District Uttar Dinajpur. E...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »