Kolkata Court April 2000 Judgments

Smt. Mira De Vs. Shri Mahendra Nath Biswas and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)3CALLT208(HC)

G.C. De, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff landlord is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 27.1.95 passed by Shri B. K. Dutta, Judge of the fourth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta In Ejectment Suit No. 297 of 1988. The tenant defendant appeared and contested this appeal.2. Briefly stated the plaint case is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the premises No. 10A, Nilmanl Dutta Lane, Calcutta-12 and the defendant was a tenant under her in respect of the entire first floor in the said premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 160/- payable according to English calander month, that as the plaintiff requires the suit premises reasonably for her own use and occupation and she has no other' reasonably suitable accommodation elsewhere and as the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent since September, 1987 and also the defendant was guilty of annoyance, nuisance and misconduct, the tenancy was determined on the basis of a notice of ejectment duly served on the defendant but...

Govinda Mout Vs. Tarak Nath Shah

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)3CALLT254(HC)

G.C. De, J.1. One Govinda Mout filed Title Suit No. 405 of 1986 against one Tarak Nath Shah in the City Civil Court. Calcutta praying for a declaration that he is a monthly tenant under the defendant in respect ofone room and a privy on the northern side of premises No. 3, Leonard Road, Calcutta-22 and/or permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.2. Shri Tarak Nath Shah, on the other hand, instituted Title Suit No. 1248 of 1986 against the said Govinda Mout in the same Court praying for a declarallon that the defendant was a licensee in respect of one room situated on the northern side of the premises No. 3, Leo'nard Road under the plaintiff and for vacant and khas possession of the said premises.3. Both the suits were tried analogously by the Fourth Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta and Shrl P.K. Mitra, Judge of the said Court by a common judgment dated 30.4.93 dismissed the Title ...

Maruti Equipments Pvt. Limited and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and a ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)3CALLT37(HC),2000(1)CHN903

D. Sengupta, J.1. This revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding being case No. C-41 of 1993 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The opposite parly No.2 filed a petition of complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging commission of an offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act against the present petitioners. It was alleged in the said complaint that the accused/petitioner No.2 issued a cheque bearing No. 156276 dated 10.2.92 for Rs. 7,75,000/- drawn on Stale Bank of India, Vatva I.E. Ahmedabad. The said cheque was presentedfor encashment by the complainant with State Bank of India, Baghbazar, Calcutta. The said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank, which by Its debit memo dated 25.11.92 informed the petitioner that the said cheque was returned unpaid for the reason of 'Insufficient Funds'. The complainant/ O.P. No.2 issued a demand notice on 2.12.92, which was received by the accused petitioner on 10.12.92. On failure to...

Minor Nantu Bag and anr. Vs. Smt. Rasana Bala Dasi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2001Cal53

S.B. Sinha, J.1. This second appeal has been referred to the Division Bench by an order dated 30th April, 1974 stating :--'One of the points involved in this appeal is whether a co-shares of an Immovable property is entitled to maintain an action for trespass against a wrong-doer and whether in such circumstances the Court should give the plaintiff-cosharer a decree for joint possession with the trespasser the court should give such a decree for joint possession the other co-sharers who might have been impleaded as pro forma parties in the suit. My attention has been drawn to various decisions, namely. : AIR1970Cal444 and : AIR1930Cal113 , which not take consistent view on the points. In my view, the points involves in the appeal are of sufficient importance to be considered by the Division Bench. Therefore, refer the appeal to the Division Bench.' 2. The defendant is the Appellant in this appeal.3. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has filed a suit against the appellant herein claiming i...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kwality Ice Creams (P.) Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]245ITR252(Cal)

1. On an application under Section 250(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding' that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the machinery acquired for manufacture of ice-cream by taking' a view that ice-cream was not a confectionery and did not fall within items of Schedule 11 to the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a result of which the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cancelling the order of the Assessing Officer under Section 147(b) was upheld ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company and the method of accounting' adopted was the mercantile system. The original assessment ordermade under Section 143(3) of the Act, was reopened under Section 147(b) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer took the view that the assessee-company was engaged in the manufac...

Amarendra Nath Das Vs. Dhiraj Bhattacharjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT92(HC)

Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. This is an application for quashing of a proceeding being complaint Case No. C.H. 205/1985 under sections 379/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.2. It appears that Nagracata police station case No. 8 dated 26.12.70 under sections 379/411/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered on the basis of a suo motu. complaint lodged by Sub-Inspector Dalbahadur Chettry, Officer-in-charge Nagracata police station. In the First Information Report it was alleged that on receipt of a secret information that some persons from Siliguri area would unscrew the valve near Diana bridge and steal oil from the Indian Oil Pipeline, the complainant along with force left for working out the said information. While proceeding to Diana bridge they found a black flat car bearing No. WBG 3382 going in high speed in the opposite direction. The police party proceeded further and at 21.30 hours they found a tanker bearing No...

Abu Taher Ali Vs. Seta Chand, Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001CriLJ202

ORDERM.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The instant contempt case is filed by the writ petitioner alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the order of this Court dated 2-9-98.2. The petitioner had filed the writ petition being W.P. No. 16703(W) of 1998 for a direction inter alia, upon respondents therein to allow the petitioner to appear for the interview for the post of Primary School Teacher in the district of Murshidabad, and to consider the petitioner's candidature as a trained candidate treating B.Ed. qualification of the petitioner as equivalent to Junior Basic Training. By way of interim relief injunction was prayed for restraining the respondent authorities from holding interview for the post of Primary School Teacher.3. The foundation for the aforesaid relief as set out in the writ petition is that the petitioner passed the Madhyamik Pariksha in 1978 and registered his name with the local employment exchange on 6-9-1978 and thereafter, the petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Examinati...

Mohanlal Bazaz Vs. Controller of Estate Duty

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]244ITR646(Cal)

1. On an application of the assessee under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Tribunal has referred the following question : 'Whether, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the estate duty payable in respect of the estate of the deceased is not deductible from the principal value of the estate ?' 2. None appeared for the accountable person though the matter has been listed twice. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. 4. One Smt. Jamuna Devi Bazaz died on October 5, 1979. The accountable person, Sri Mohanlal Bazaz, filed an estate duty return on September 13, 1980. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty computed the principal value of the estate of the deceased at Rs. 9,05,451. During the course of valuing the estate for the purpose of estate duty, the assessee claimed that there shall be a deduction of estate duty liability from the principal value of the estate. This claim was negatived by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty in his order dated March 3...

N.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. Applicant, Shri N.C. Sharma, Upper Division Clerk (UDC, in short) in the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Asansol being aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.1990 in respect of regularisation of his service in the cadre of UDC and rejection of the representation dated 17.4.1990 vide letter dated 30.3.1992 had filed this application for regularisation of his past adhoc service in the cadre of UDC with effect from 3.7.1982 and for assignment of appropriate seniority of the applicant in the grade of UDC above the position of Shri R.M. Prasad, UDC and Shri M.P. Mahato, UDC who were junior to the applicant as LDC and promoted as UDCs later on a permanent basis before the applicant was declared permanent. The case of the applicant, in short, is that he was appointed as LDC in the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol on 11.4.1968. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of UDC in the said office with effect from 3.7.82 in a vacancy occurred when Shri M. N...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Fibre Dealers (P.) Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]248ITR622(Cal)

Y.R. Meena J.1. On an application under Section 256(1} of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out in paragraph 6 at page 6 of the statement of case for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing investment allowance on jeeps and motor cycles owned by the assessee under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing extra shift allowance on building and furniture as per Section 32 read with rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee has filed its return on November 20, 1978, showing the total income of Rs. 2,62,601. The assessment was completed under Section 144 on January 31, 198...