Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1999Cal132
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated the 10th December, 1996 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in Extraordinary Suit No, 60 of 1987. Some of the defendants of the suit, namely, the defendant Nos. 3(a), 3(b), 4 and 6 are the appellants in this appeal.2. The respondent No. 1, Mayapur Sree Chaitanya Math was the plaintiff No. 1 in the suit.That is a society registered on 16th May, 1978 under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The other plaintiffs of the suit were the office bearers and members of the said society and they also claimed to be the worshippers of the deities Sri Sri Guru Gouranga Gandharbika Giridhari Jew installed at Sree Chaitanya Mathat Mayapur and also at various other places and some of them are disciples of late Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati, the founder of Sree Chaitanya Math and its various branches. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 11 and the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal178
Chakravartti, J.1. This Rule under Article 226 of the Constitution India was issued at the instance of two petitioners, one of whom may, for all practical purposes, be left out off account. The first petitioner is one Mr. Aswini Kumar Ghose who, besides being an Advocate of this Court entitled to practise both on the Original and the Appellate Side, is also an Advocate of the Supreme Court. The second petitioner is one Jnanendra Nath Chatterjee who is the defendant in a suit pending on the Original Side of this Court and on whose behalf the first petitioner made an attempt to file a 'warrant of power and appearance'. It is alleged that the said warrant was at first received by an Assistant in the Suit Registry Department, but was subsequently returned by the first respondent, who is the Suit Registrar in the Order Department of the Original Side, with the endorsement that it 'must be filed by an Attorney of this Court under High Court Rules and Orders, Original Side and not by an Advoc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 59Ind.Cas.403
1. In these three matters Rules were issued on the same day practically based on the same fasts. They arise out of some boring operations in Mouzah Parsundi comprising of about 5,000 bighas of land (4,906 according to the Revenue Survey). The Iron and Steel Company, who are the first party in the proceedings under Section 145 initiated on the 10th July 1919, obtained as petitioners, Rule No. 847 on the following allegations, namely, that the Maharaja of Burdwan was the Zemindar of the Mouzah and sole owner of the minerals and mineral rights therein. On the 9th September 1839 he granted a putni settlement of the Mouzah to certain persons shortly referred to as the Chatterjees and Misras. On the 5th April he authorised one E.J. Seth Sam on behalf of the Parsundi Mining Syndicate to go on with boring operations in the Mouzah pending execution and registration of a formal document and Seth Sam in his turn on the 12th April 1918 authorised the petitioners to carry on boring operations there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT146(HC),2000(71)ECC72
V.K, Gupta. J.1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against Judgment dated 27/3/92 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Metter No. 2897 of 1989 whereby he has by allowing the writ application filed by the respondents directed the appellants to clear and deliver the goods imported by the respondents without payment of any duly of Customs caused by reason of the withdrawal of the exemption notification Issued in terms of section 25 of the Customs Act and by Issuing certain other consequential and ancillary directions.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondents being engaged in the business of textiles took steps for importing from abroad an automatic winding machine used in the textile industry and called by the name of 'AUTOCONER'. -AUTOCONEK' as a machine item was liable to attract the payment of customs duty under section 25 of the Customs Act at all material times except during the relevant period, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1988Cal228,1987(13)ECC83,1987(27)ELT626(Cal)
ORDERSudhir Ranjan Roy, J.1. These two matters involving common questions of fact and law have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The facts of the two cases, which are practically identical, may be summarised as follows : --The petitioners No. 1 in both the cases are manufacturers of Ciscose Staple yarn and for that purpose import Viscose staple fibre from time to time.3. The Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 issued notifications exempting Viscose staple fibre from the whole of customs duty and whole of additional duty up to December 31, 1979.4. Subsequently, two fresh notifications dated January 5, 1979, were issued under Section 25(1) exempting Viscose Staple fibre from the whole of the basic customs duty as before, but introducing additional duty at the rate of Rs. 1.32 per kg. Both these notifications were to remain in force up to and inclusive of December 31, 1979.5. Relying upon these not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1884)ILR10Cal92
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case certain immoveable property was sold by the Sheriff of Calcutta in execution of a decree of this Court for Rs. 5,000. It was sold subject to two mortgages, securing repayment with interest of Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 250 respectively.2. The Board of Revenue have referred to us the question whether the stamp on the sale certificate should be for Rs. 5,000, the purchase-money, or for Rs. 12,250, being the amount of the purchase-money plus the sum secured by the mortgages.3. The Collector and the Board of Revenue consider that the stamp should be for Rs. 12,250, and we are referred to two Full Bench authorities, one of the Bombay High Court Sha Nagindas Jeychand v. Halalkore Nathwa Gheesla I.L.R. 5 Bom. 470 and the other of the Madras High Court-Reference under Section 49 of the Stamp Act I.L.R. 5 Mad. 18, which appeared to be in conflict.4. The Bombay Court decided that where a certificate of sale expressly stated that the sale was made subject to the mortgage...
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 : 1998(2)ALD(Cri)900,1998(61)ECC17
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Could in exercise of revisional power under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Single Judge of the Court interfere with the order of the Chief Judge. City Sessions Court at Calcutta who acted in obedience to the direction of a Division Bench of the Court and decided afresh the application of the opposite party for bail in a case allegedly falling under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the accusation of contravention of the provision of Sections 8(1), 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d), 16(1)(a)(b), 18(2) and 18(3) read with Section 68 of the said Act?2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The opposite party was arrested on 25.5.96 for the aforementioned offences allegedly committed by him involving about Rs. 53 crores during the period March to October, 1995. He was remanded to custody by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by the order dated 26th May, 1996. He filed an application for bail in terms of Sub-section (1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. This is directed against the judgment dated 11th July, 2007 and the order dated 12th July, 2007 passed by learned 6th Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in N.D.P.S. Case No. 87 of 2004 (N.C.B. Crime No. 19/NCB/Cal/2004). Learned Trial Court held the appellant/convict guilty of the offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. The appellant thereby was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- only, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:On 25th September, 2004, a batch of officers and staff of NCB, EZU, Kolkata led by the Superintendent went to Dum Dum Road at about 11:00 hours. They intercepted a person in front of Leela Cinema hall. He was identified by the informer. This was pursuant to a specific information, which was duly reduced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008BusLR303(NULL)
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. The writ petition has been directed against an order of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Learned Tribunal) dated August 10, 2007. 2. Facts of the case briefly are as follows:The petitioner is a public limited company having its unit at Kolkata, Pune and Cochin for preparing packet tea, blended tea and tea bags. According to the petitioner, the said units are 100% export oriented undertakings. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act). The petitioner purchased tea at Kolkata and Siliguri tea auctions through tea brokers. 3. West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 framed Rule 42 made pursuant to Section 17(3)(a)(xi) of the Act and Rule 81 made pursuant to Section 17(3)(3)(iii) of the Act which provided for exemption of tax on sales of tea at such auctions if such te...
Tag this Judgment!