Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 95CWN1085,II(1991)DMC227
Bhattacharjee, J.1. A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed by the trial Court on merits as well as on the ground of the petition having been presented few days before the expiry of one year from the date of the marriage in contravention of the provisions of Section 14(1). My learned brother Banerjee, J. has, for the reasons stated in his judgment hereinafter, upheld the decision of the trial Judge on merits. While I respectfully agree with the view of Banerjee, J. that the petition has been rightly dismissed on merits and that the alleged cruelty by the wife has not been proved. I have my doubts as to whether the provisions of Section 14(1) prohibiting the entertainment of a petition for divorce before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage is that mandatory to require compliance with mathematical precis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1991]192ITR144(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference at the instance of both the assessee and the Commissioner, as many as seven questions have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was right in holding that the exclusion of borrowed capital from the computation of capital employed in two new industrial undertakings for the purpose of Section 80J was not at all justified 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was correct in holding that, in computing the capital employed in the two new industrial undertakings for the purpose of Section 80J, current liabilities wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1991]188ITR717(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76, the following questions of law have been referred to this court :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of the Income-tax Act and Rules and the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the assessee was entitled to triple shift depreciation allowance on its plant and machinery ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company is entitled to depreciation at 10 per cent. in respect of its overhead cables and wires 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of supply of electrical energy to the consumers of Hooghly, Chinsurahand Bansberia. The assessee-company purchased high voltage electrical energy from the West Bengal State Electricity Board and distributed the same by reducing the voltage and transmitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1991)2CALLT214(HC)
Anandamoy Bhattacharjee, J.1. Even though Tennyson criticised British Laws as 'the Lawless Science of our Laws', as 'myriads of precedents' resulting in 'wilderness of single instances', the Poet also eulogised the system as where 'freedom broadens from precedent to precedent'. Some amount of 'wilderness'' also crept in our laws modelled on the British pattern and both certainty and also uniformity were very often the casualties.2. But very soon our Courts could get over the outdated legal logomachy and hair-splitting niceties and becoming fully alive to the mandate of our National Charter to secure social and economic justice and to ensure that socio-economic justice 'shall inform all the institutions of the national life', have made spirited endeavours to broaden the scope of socio-economic justice from 'precedent to precedent'. As a result, we have now evolved a new juristic principle, a new Jurisprudential approach, to the effect that whenever socio-economic justice appears to be i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1991)1CALLT459(HC),[1991]71CompCas273(Cal),1991CriLJ609
Siba Prosad Rajhowa, J.1. By this revision application, the petitioners have challenged the order dated March 1, 1990, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta, in Case No. C/1930 of 1989 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the petition filed by the petitioners praying for dropping the proceeding on the ground of maintainability.2. The facts of the complaint case as disclosed from the copy of the complaint petition dated August 23, 1989, appended to this revision application may be summarised as follows :The opposite party as complainant filed the said complaint case in his capacity as Secretary, Titagarh Steel Limited. The complaint petition goes on to say that accused-petitioner No. 1 is a public company with its registered office at 19, J. N. Heredia Marg., Volkart Building, Ballard Estate, Bombay-36 and its Calcutta office at Gillan-der House, N. S. Road, Calcutta-1. Accused-petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1991)1CALLT63(HC),95CWN248
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge in Matter No. 1212 of 1986 allowing the writ petition of the principal respondents in the instant appeal and quashing the first information report being No. 597 dated July 15, 1986 and the proceedings initiated thereon. The appellant authority was also directed to return the seized material, if any, till then lying in the appellant's custody. There was also an order of permanent injunction restraining the present appellant authority from interferring with storage of non-levy cement in the godowns of the writ petitioners or taking any further step in terms of the West Bengal Licencing of Dealers of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982, hereinafter referred to as the State Control Order of 1982.2. The appellant authority initiated proceedings against the writ petitioners for the violation of paragraph 10(1) of the aforesaid State Contral Order of 1982 and paragra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1991Cal205
ORDER1. The writ petitioner is the brother of Waris Ali Meerza, the third Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad, who died sometime in 1969. The case of the petitioner is that he claims to be the present Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad and Amir-ul-Omrah by virtue of succession from Syed Hassan Ali Meerza, the last Nawab Nazim of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and the first Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad as per the following genealogical table :-- Fedoon Jah Mansoor Ali d 1884 | Sir Hassan Ali Khan (1St Nowad dt. 1906) | ----------------------------------------- | |Wasif Ali Meerza Nasir Ali Meerza(Second Nawab d. 1959) (No son) dt 1945 | ------------------------------------------------------- | | |Waris Ali Meerza Fetehyab Ali Meerza Kazem Ali(Third Nawab) (Born (Petitioner) Meeza1000 d. 20.11.69) (Born 1911)The petitioner's great grandfather Faridoon Jah Syed Mansoor Ali Khan was the Nawab Nazim of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and was an independent ruler of Subah-e-Bangala and the owner of moveable and immov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1991)2CALLT96(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This writ petition was moved on behalf of petitioners M/s. Positive Commercial Co. Ltd. & Anr., challenging, inter alia, the seizure made by the Respondents and imposition of penalty of Rs. 97,000/- in a proceeding Under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by the Commercial Tax Officer, Asansol charge (being Respondent No. 3) which is annexure 'C to the present writ petition.2. The penalty was imposed pursuant to the seizure made on October 22, 1985, by the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Duburdih Check Post, Duburdih in terms of the show cause notice, whereby the petitioner company was charged for alleged transportation of the 'notified commodities in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act.3. The short facts of the case are as follows :-The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956, having Registered Office at 6A, Saklat Place, Calcutta-71 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1991Cal120,(1990)2CALLT425(HC),94CWN1114
ORDER1. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 30 of 1989 in the Second Court of Munsif, Contai for a declaration that the plaintiff stood first among the candidates interviewed for selection of an assistant teacher, for other declarations, permanent injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory.2. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant school sponsored names of some candidates from the employment exchange for filling up a vacancy of an assistant teacher in the school. Since the Ad hoc Committee of the school resolved to eliminate the plaintiff she had to file a writ being C.O. 2538(W) of 1988. In terms of direction in the writ by the High Court Committee interviewed the candidates including the plaintiff. On an illegal assessment of marks one Tapati Khatua was selected although the plaintiff stood first in the selection. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Inspector of Schools who on the basis of an enquiry report cancelled the panel prepared by the Selection Committee and di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1991)2CALLT75(HC),1991(33)ECC205,1991(53)ELT524(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. A good number of writ petitions have been moved in the Original Side of the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction of this Court challenging a Public Notice bearing No. 122-ITC(PN)/88-91 dated 28th of April, 1989 issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, New Delhi and an Import Trade Control Order No. 52/88-91 dated 28th of April, 1989 issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. The present case has been heard by this Bench patiently considering lengthy submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The petitioners Kalindi Woollen Mills (P) Limited, a Company and the petitioner No. 2 being one of its shareholders have come to this Court seeking reliefs by way of issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to revoke, rescind and cancel the order and/or the Public Notice dated 28th of April, 1989 copy of which is Annexure 'D' to the present writ petition and also the Public Notice...
Tag this Judgment!