Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1975Cal314,86CWN793
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. The appellants, who are 60 in number, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of B. C. Ray J., whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The appellants claim to be the tenants of premises No. 174, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, which is a 14-storeyed building. It is not disputed that the said building has been constructed without any sanctioned plan and in violation of the provisions of the Calcutta MunicipalAct, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Building Rules under Schedule XVI of the Act. Admittedly, one Smt. Durga Devi is the owner of the land, comprising the said building being premises No. 174, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. The respondent No. 11, Shyam Lal Agarwalla, took a lease of the land with an old structure standing thereon from the said Durga Devi on June 27, 1977. The old structure was demolished by him and, thereafter, he started the construction of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 84CWN83,[1980]121ITR241(Cal)
Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment which Mr. Justice B. C. Mitra had delivered on the 14th March, 1966, on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking appropriate writs for cancelling, rescinding, withdrawing and commanding the revenue authorities concerned to forbear from giving effect to certain notices dated February 20, I960, issued under Section 34(1)(a) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922. 2. The respondents are the legal representatives of one Md. Safiulla who died on March 23, 1953. The deceased owned several houses and other properties at Tinsukia in Assam and was assessed under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, at Dibrugarh. 3. On December 24, 1954, the ITO, Dibrugarh, issued several notices under Section 34(1A) of the Act on some of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased on the ground that there was reason to believe that incomes for the years 1940-41 to 1947-48 had escaped assessment. The persons who were served with these notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1980]45STC260(Cal)
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. The plaintiffs brought the suit for declaration that a certificate issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act for realisation of sales tax dues from them was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction and for setting aside and cancellation of the said certificate. The plaintiffs also prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent, the State of West Bengal, from executing such certificate for realisation of sales tax and/or dues for the year 1367 B.S. and for subsequent years.2. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, was that one Nityananda Nag, since deceased, used to run a sweetmeat shop under the name and style of 'Desh-bandhu Mistana Bhandar' in the town of Burdwan. Owing to his old age and various ailments, he closed down the business and duly intimated the commercial tax authorities the fact of such closure by surrendering his registration certificate being No. B.N. 597A. Thereafter, Nityananda trans--ferred the goodwill of the business by a de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 81CWN699,[1978]114ITR379(Cal)
..... article 226 of the constitution on grounds, inter alia, that the order did not contain any reasons for transfer as required by law, and the connected rule was issued on this application on the concerned income-tax officers, the commissioner of income-tax, central circle, the secretary, central board of direct taxes and the union of india. the rule was contested by the respondents and on hearing the parties the rule was discharged by the impugned order under appeal.5. as the appeal came up for hearing, learned advocate-general conceded that in view of the decision of the supreme court ..... power conferred on court in such 'other' proceeding. the supreme court observed, while considering section 132(5) of the income-tax act, 1961, as follows :'the court in exercising its powers under article 226 has to mould the remedy to suit the facts of a case. if in a particular case a court ..... of a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 139, whichever is latest. (2) no order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147- (a) ..... , the assessee would reap an unfair and improper advantage which was never their claim in the writ petition.7. the relevant provisions are as follows:'153. time limit for completion of assessments and ..... a proceeding before any court, otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under the act that provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to certain classes of assessments, reassessments and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1977]108ITR922(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, the assessee. The assessment year involved is 1962-63, the relevant previous year being the financial year 1961-62. The facts found or admitted in the statement of the case and the annexures thereto are as follows :2. By a notification dated the 10th June, 1960, issued by the Government of West Bengal, under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, as amended by the Road Transport Corporations (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1959, the assessee was established and commenced functioning with effect from the 15th June, 1960.3. In the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee was assessed to Income-tax for the first time in the status of an individual. This assessment was not disputed and became final. In the assessment year 1962-63, relevant in this reference, the Income-tax Officer again assessed the assessee in the same status. This time, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1988(37)ELT70(Cal)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of K.L Roy, J. on August 28,1970, by which his Lordship disposed of a Rule. By the said Rule, the petitioner Bird and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. challenged certain notices issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise under Section 28(1) and an order made under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The petitioner, who is the appellant before us, carries on business, Inter alia, of export of jute specialities. These jute specialities are jute manufactures within the meaning of Item 2 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act. Under the said item, duty is payable on the said goods at he rate of Rs. 500 per tonne.3. By a notification dated June 19,1968, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, the Government of India exempted the articles specified in Column 2 of the table appended to the said notification from so much of the duty leviable thereon as was in excess of the duty leviable at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1974CriLJ1134
N.C. Talukdar, J.1. This is an application for bail on behalf of the second-applicant, . Choutmall Sarogi alias Agarwalla, arising out of orders dated the 28th December, 1973 and the 29th December. 1973, passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, in Section G. Case No. 851 dated 27-12-1973 under Rules 43 (5) and 36 (6) (i) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The application is with notice to the State and is opposed.2. The facts leading on to the application can be put in a short compass. The accused-applicant is stated to be a Director of M/s. Shree Bajrang Commercial Co. (P.) Ltd. having its office at 13, Brabourne Road. Calcutta and he resides at 11-B, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, Calcutta. On the 27th December 1973 he was arrested by the police on the charge that he, in collusion with three other directors of the company, has been withholding the unloading of salt brought by ships berthed at the Calcutta Port from Sauras...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ399Cal
Debi Prosad Pal, J.1. The petitioner Messrs. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. has challenged the order passed by the 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal on a reference under Section 36A of Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is necessary to refer to the circumstances which led to the said reference under the Act. The workmen of the petitioner company raised an industrial dispute on various conditions of service against the employer. By an order dated 21-7-1961 the Government of West Bengal referred the dispute for adjudication to the 5th Industrial Tribunal, One of the disputes being issue No. 5 related to the dearness allowance to be paid for all categories of workmen. The Tribunal made an award on 26th April, 1965 which was published in the Calcutta Gazette in its issue dated 10th June, 1965. The award fixed the rate of dearness allowance as per basis fixed by the Minimum Wage Committee and linked with the cost of living index. The workmen preferred an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1973Cal325
A.K. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the claimant appellant against a judgment and decree rejecting the reference made against Collector's award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. Before we enter into the points raised we would indicate brief outlines of the circumstances under which the order under controversy was made. The appellant who had certain vacant lands offered to the State Government for sale for settlement and rehabilitation of refugees. After several correspondence between the parties and the State the lands so offered were agreed to be acquired. There was further correspondence over the payment of compensation and as a result of several correspondence the appellant agreed to accept the maximum price of Rs. 9,000/- per acre for the acquisition of the land by the State.3. After the appellant had agreed to the valuation offered by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, possession of the lands was amicably delivered from time to time on diverse dates between 4t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1973Cal135
S.C. Ghose, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff who is a Solicitor of this Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as his remuneration under a contract dated November 20, 1963, whereby the defendant No. 1 authorised the plaintiff to do certain acts, namely;(a) To negotiate the sale of the premises No. 43. Ripon Street belonging to the defendant No. 1 at Rs. 1,10,000/- free from all encumbrances with a stipulation that vacant possession of only one flat in the first floor in the occupation of the defendant No, 1 was to be given to the purchaser. (b) To negotiate cancellation of an existing agreement for sale of the said property. (c) To act for the defendant No. 1 In regard to the transaction of sale. 2. The agreement between the parties is contained in a letter dated 20th November, 1963, written to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 and accepted by the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff duly negotiated for the sale of the said premises with one Sudhangsu Prakash Ganguli of ...
Tag this Judgment!