Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1982)29CTR(Cal)15,[1983]141ITR419(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1970-71. The assessee is one of the co-owners of the house property known as Radia House situated in Bombay. She had one-eighth share in the said property. A part of the building, viz., two-thirds of the total floor area, has been in occupation of the tenants under certain lease agreements and the remaining one-third of the building has been in the occupation of the licensees under ' Leave and Licence ' system which has been in vogue in the State of Bombay. It appears that the said system has been adopted by the house-owners so that the occupants could not claim statutory protection under the Rent Control Act and they could be evicted by the owners at their will. It further appeared before the Tribunal that under this system the licence for occupation was generally given for a period not exceeding 11 months so that there might not be any possibility of the transactions being construed as lease. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN447,2005(30)PTC140(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 11th February, 2004 passed by the learned Judge of the first Court refusing to grant injunction on its application (G. A. No. 2709 in C. S. No. 213 of 2003) filed alleging infringement of its design registered under No. 183322. The appellant's prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by another learned Judge on 18th August, 2003 and His Lordship directed the matter to be considered upon affidavits.2. In respect of its design, the appellant obtained a certificate of registration on 2th January, 2001, from the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark, and the certificate is dated 28th August, 2000, and numbered 183322. Admittedly the certificate was granted under the provisions of the Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'old Act') and the Designs Rule, 1933. The design was in respect of figured glass and it was stated in the certificate that the design will subsist for 5 years from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1981Cal428
ORDERDipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The plaintiff is the Receiver appointed in Suit No. 1683 of 1964 (Sitaram Dehi v. Basdeo Dehi & Ors.) inter alia, over premises No. 13, Pretoria Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises).2. M/s. Loch Lomond Lodge (P) Ltd., the defendant, was a monthly tenant of the said premise's at a rent of Rs. 885.50 per month payable according to the English Calendar.3. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the defendant for eviction on the grounds of wrongful addition and alteration to the premises and wrongful sub-letting. The plaintiff also claims mesne profits and damages.4. The plaintiff alleges that since the institution of this suit a number of challans in respect of rent deposited by the defendant have not been received from the Rent Controller Calcutta between January 1968 till October 1972 and that the defendant has not also made any deposit of rent in this Court -- during the said period.5. It is contended that the deposits of ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal199,(1977)1CompLJ175(Cal),82CWN252
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal from appellate decree is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 30, 1970, made in Title Appeal No. 337 of 1970 by Shri S. K. Dutta. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, affirming thereby the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1970, made in Title Suit No. 234 of 1968, by Shri D. K, Panda, Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore.2. The plaintiff-respondent, being the owner of the premises in suit brought the Title Suit in question against the defendant appellant for recovery of khas possession by eviction and for mesne profits and also for compensation for damages Caused to the same. It was alleged that the defendant appellant was a tenant in respect of two bed rooms, one privy and one verandah at a monthly rent of Rupees 35/-, payable according to English calendar month. It was contended that the tenant defendant broke open a portion of the wall in between the bed rooms of his tenancy, made a hole in the wall of the privy and broke other portion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1983]53CompCas693(Cal)
ORDER (1) That all the property, rights and powers of the transferor-company specified in the first, second and third parts of the Schedule hereto and all other property, rights and powers of the transferor-company be transferred without further act or deed to the transferee-company and, accordingly, the same shall pursuant to Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, be transferred to and vest in the transferee-company for all the estate andinterest of the transferor-company therein but subject nevertheless to all charges now affecting the same [other than (here set out any charges which by virtue of the compromise or arrangement are to cease to have effect) ]. (Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not relevant for our purpose and, as such, omitted)SCHEDULE PART I (Insert a short description of the freehold property of the transferor-company) PART II (Insert a short description of the leasehold property of the transferor-company) PART III (Insert a short description of all stocks, sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1979]116ITR440(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. This reference arises out of the proceedings for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, the corresponding previous years having ended on 31st December, 1961, and 28th February, 1962, respectively. The income-tax assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on a total income of Rs. 58,47,380 and Rs. 31,13,458 on 22nd February, 1964, and 23rd March, 1964, for the two assessment years respectively. The assessee had discontinued its business in India on 28th February, 1962, and had filed a claim under Section 25(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, on 27th March, 1962. In the said claim, it was stated by the assessee as under :'With reference to our letter dated 12th March, 1962, and in accordance with the provisions of the above Section whereby no income-tax and super-tax shall be payable by us in respect of the income, profits or gains for the period between the end of the previous year and 28th February, 1962, by virtue of our business...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1976Cal328
S.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the tenant defendant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, striking out the defence of the defendant against delivery of possession under Section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff opposite party.2. The suit was instituted on July 16, 1973 on the allegation that the petitioner had failed and neglected to pay rent since June, 1970. The writ of summons was served in the suit upon the petitioner on June 3, 1974 and on July 17, 1974, the petitioner filed an application under Section 17 (2) of the Act. The said application was dismissed by the Court on September 4, 1974 and exactly a month thereafter the opposite party filed an application under Section 17 (3) of the Act, out of which the present Rule arises.3. Before the learned Chief Judge, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1976Cal274
S.K. Bhattacharyya, J. 1. This appeal by the tenant defendant No. 1 under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the decision of Gupta, J. affirming the decision of the Courts below, whereby the plaintiff respondent's suit for eviction of the defendant appellant from a portion of the disputed premises was decreed. 2. The suit was initially instituted against the present appellant and four others for eviction from the suit premiseson the ground of default in the payment of rent. The trial Court decreed the suit against the present appellant holding him to be the tenant in respect of the suit premises and dismissed the suit against the other defendants on the ground that they were unnecessary parties. Against the said decision, the defendant went up in appeal to the first appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, 8th Court, Alipore by his judgment and decree dated September 26, 1958. Both Courts found the appellant to be a defaulter in the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1955Cal442
G.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement in writing dated 22-7-1953 executed by the defendant, for possession of a shop room, for compensation in addition to specific performance and for other reliefs. .2. The defendant is a monthly tenant of a shop room in premises No. 2 Lal Bazar Street, Calcutta paying rent of Rs. 110/- per month. He sublet a portion of this shop room to a firm known as National Marble Company at Rs. 60/- per month. By the agreement in suit, the defendant agreed to sublet the whole of the shop room to the plaintiff including the portion occupied by National Marble Company in consideration of Rs. 7,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to him besides a sum of Rs. 110/-by way of monthly rent. The document provides that the plaintiff is to have no liability for taxes or any charges in respect of the holding. The important clauses of the document wherein the plaintiff is described as the first party and the defendant as the second party are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1954Cal520
G.N. Das, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of a tenant and is directed against an order passed by Mr. R. C. Dutt Gupta, learned District Judge, Howrah, dated 16-8-1952.2. The facts shortly stated are that on 25-3-1949, the petitioner filed an application for fixation of standard rent in respect of the disputed premises under the provisions of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the 1948 Act. On 9-4-1951, the Rent Controller passed an order fixing the standard rent. It appears from the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller which was filed in the court below that an application for a certified copy of the order was made on 10-4-1951. The copy was ready for delivery to the petitioner on 20-4-1951. The appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was filed on 15-5-1951. It was duly registered and it came on for hearing before Mr. R. K. Dutt Gupta, learned District Judge, Howrah.At that stage an objection was rai...
Tag this Judgment!