Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1989Cal225,(1989)1CALLT120(HC)
ORDERPrabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order of requisition of first floor flat in premises No. 12, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta (formeriy known as British Indian Street) made under West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947. The said first floor flat of the said premises No. 12, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta was requisitioned as early as 1961 for the purpose of accommodation of a Government servant employed by the State of West Bengal.2. The petitioner is the Administratorpendente lite in a Testamentary Suit No. 24 of 1980 in respect of estate of one Phulmoni Dasi since deceased. The said estate of said Phulmoni Dasi included, inter alia, the property being the said premises No. 12, Abdui Hamid Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). By virtue of the said appointment of the petitioner as Administrator, the petitioner claims to be the custodia legis of the est...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (1989)(24)LC594Tri(Kol.)kata
1. Collector of Customs, Calcutta has filed two applications in terms of the provisions of Section 129D(4) of Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as appeals. The said applications were presented in the Registry on 24-11-1983. Since a common issue is involved in both the applications, these are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. The Bench had pointed out to the Ld. S.D.R. that the applications, which are being treated as appeals, have not been filed properly. In the applications in Form C.A. 5, Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta has been shown as appellant whereas the same should have been the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. To this query Shri M.C. Thakur, Ld.S.D.R. has made a request that necessary permission for rectifying the defect may be granted. The learned advocates for both the respondents have no objection for granting opportunity to the appellant for rectifying the defect.3. After hearing both the sides, necessary permission for the rectification of the defect was g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1988(18)ECC180
M.N. Roy, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact arose in the appeal being F.M.A. No. 4198 of 1985 and other appeals being F.M.A. No, 95 and F.M.A. No. 96 of 1986 and all the appeals excepting the one in F.M.A.T. No. 2338 of 1983 which was against the determination of D.K. Sen, were directed against the determinations made by Suhas Chandra Sen, J. in the respective civil rules on diverse dates, they were heard together by consent of parties. The other assigned appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 2338 of 1983, which arose out of the judgment and order dated 14th July, 1983, passed in C.O. No. 15368(W) of 1982, was also heard immediately after the first group of appeals and along with them, as similar questions of fact and law, were involved for determination.2. Admittedly, the Central Excises And Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) had undergone an amendment in or about March 1986 which and thereby 'packaging' has been included within the excisibility of goods including ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1988Cal275,[1989]66CompCas452(Cal),92CWN1017
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. A Company, which was a thika tenant under the plaintiff-appellants in respect of the disputed land, has been dissolved Would the tenancy stand extinguished and the land revert to the landlords or would the tenancy vest in the State by escheat or as bona vacantia? These are the questions that have arisen for our consideration in this second appeal and having considered them with the very able assistance from the learned counsel for the parties, we propose to return a negative answer to the first question and an affirmative answer to the second.2. So far this Court is concerned, it was observed by P.B. Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) in U.N. Mandal's Estate Pvt. Ltd., : AIR1959Cal493 that 'the assets of a dissolved Company are not without owner' as 'the State takes them over'. It was pointed out further that though there is no provision in the Indian Companies Act, corresponding to Section 354 of the English Companies Act of 1948, providing expressly tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)79CTR(Cal)31,[1989]178ITR74(Cal)
ORDER--Part of order not considered by AAC or Tribunal--Did not merged with appellate order.HELD:If the appeal court could not have dealt with apart of the order of the lower court because it was non-appealalbe, then the question of merger of the non-appealable part of the order in the appellate order cannot arise at all. But even if the entire order is appealable but in appeal is perferred only on certain issues and the appellate order has not trvelled beyond those issues which have actually been raised before it, cannot be said that even in such a case, the lower cours order has entirely merged in the appeal court's order and lost its identity. The ITO's assessment order survived in respect of the matters which were not covered by the appellate order and were left untouched. The revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under s. 263 could be exercised on those aspects of the assessment matters which were left untouched by the AAC.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 S.C. Sen, J.1. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1988(16)ECC114,1988(35)ELT292(Cal)
Sudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. These two Rules arising out of two different Writ petitions filed by the same petitioner, namely, Dayapara Tea Company Ltd. are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal since they involve common question of fact and law and this common judgment will govern both the Rules. For convenience it may be sufficient to lay down the facts only of C.R. No.4167(W) of 1979.2. The petitioner which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, is a manufacturer of Vanaspati and Soap, both excisable commodities.3. By Notification No. 144/68-C.E. dated 13-7-1968, as amended by Notification No. 27/73 dated 1-7-1973, the Central Govt. exempted from whole of excise duty the first fifty tonnes of household and laundry soap and first twentyfive tonnes of toilet, monopola or textile soap, cleared for home consumption on or after the first day of April in any financial year by any manufacturer whose total production of soap in the preceding financial year did not exceed 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1989]73STC277(Cal)
D.S. Tewatia, C.J.1. These matters, viz., Appeals Nos. 271/80, 291/80, 319/80, 321/80, 320/80, 322/80, /80, 270/80, 272/80, 277/80, 278/80, 274/80, 273/80, 276/80, 275/80, 279/80, 280/80, 282/80, 281/80, 286/80, 284/80, 283/80, 285/80, 287/80, 288/80, 289/80, 292/80, 294/80, 293/80, 290/80, 295/80, 280/80, /80, /80, 330/80, /80, /80, /80, /80, /80, on the Original Side and Appeals Nos. F.M.A.T. Nos. 2941 to 2943 of 1980, 2305 of 1980, 2361 to 2363 of 1980, 2308 of 1980, 80 of 1982, 2623 to 2625 of 1980, 992 of 1986, 2722 and 2723 of 1980, 1064 of 1987, 820 to 824 of 1987, 2721 of 1980, 81 of 1982, 3501 of 1981, 779 of 1981, 2362 of 1984, 2363 of 1984, 3714 of 1984, 3185 of 1984, 2312 of 1980, 1226 of 1981, 231 of 1984 and 68 of 1984 on the Appellate Side and Writ Petition No. C.R. 6682 (W) of 1982 referred to the larger Bench by the learned single Judge involve common question of law and, therefore, are being decided by a common judgment.2. The propositions of law that fall for conside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1988(18)ECC108
M.N. Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th January, 1987, passed in Civil Revision case No. 1612(W) of 1978 by Suhas Chandra Sen, J. and whereby the rule which was obtained by M/s. Burn Standard Company Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the said petitioners), against Union of India, the respondent appellants in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the said appellants), was made absolute and it was directed that a writ of or writ in nature of mandamus do issue, commanding the said appellants to act and proceed in accordance with law and/or to cancel, rescind and withdraw the impugned trade notice dated 31st August, 1977, the show cause notices dated 20/22nd September, 1977 and 3rd December, 1977 and the demand notices dated 24th November, 1977, 9th December, 1977 and 30th November, 1977 and so also a notice dated 8/10th March, 1978 and further to forbear from giving any effect or further effect or continue to give effect to the notices ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1988Cal336
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. The material facts and proceedings leading up this appeal are, inter alia, that the Government of United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, the predecessor of the present Government of Uttar Pradesh granted a licence under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, dt the 28th June 1929, for generation and distribution of electricity in the districts of Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar and Meerat in the then province of Uttar Pradesh in favour of one Martin & Co. The said Martin & Co. assigned the said licence in favour of Upper Jumna Valley Electricity Co. Ltd. the respondent No. 1 herein, whereupon the latter became a licensee within the meaning of the said Act of 1910.2. Under Clause 12(1) of the said Licence an option was conferred on the State Government to purchase the electricity undertakings of the licensee after the expiry of 35 years from the commencement of the licence and also on the expiration of every subsequent period of 20 years during the subsistence of the licence on o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1989CriLJ255
Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court Calcutta, on 2-4-87 in G. R. Case No. 1202 of 1985, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner, Rajendra Singh Sethia, on 3-1-86 under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dropping unsustainable charges framed in the case.2. The petitioner was facing trial as an accused in a case pending in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. He was arrested in connection with that case on 1-3-85 at Maurya Sheraton Hotel, New Delhi. On 2-3-85, there was a search in room No. 1589 in that hotel. As a result of the search various documents, including a passport bearing No. W 900509 dated 13-2-85 issued by the Public Relations Officer, Regional Passport and Emigration Officer, Calcutta, were seized by the Police. The G. R. Case No. 1202 of 1985 centres around this passport.3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the p...
Tag this Judgment!