Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-23-1986
Reported in : [1987]61CompCas628(Cal),91CWN596
..... by the directions of the reserve bank of the years 1973 and 1977.19. so far as table 21 pure endowment policies offered by the life insurance corporation are concerned, it is contended by mr. roy chowdhury that such policies come within the definition of ' life insurance ' as defined in section 2(11) of the insurance act, 1938. the life insurance corporation act, 1956, having conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the corporation to carry on such business, that would not obviously come within the purview of the said act. that apart, according to mr. roy chowdhury, those policies are materially distinguishable from those offered by peerless because while in the former, the premium ..... was found to be an essential characteristic.25. immediately following the said report, the reserve bank of india in exercise of its powers under sections 45(j) and 45(k) of the reserve bank of india act, issued the directives known as the miscellaneous non-banking companies (reserve bank) directions, 1973. such directions were made applicable to four types of businesses set out hereunder ([1973] 43 comp cas (st.) 255):' (1) collecting whether as a promoter, foreman, agent or in any other capacity, monies in one lump .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-04-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Cal106
ORDERSankar Bhattacharyya, J.1. This revisional application raises a short point for determination.The petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 53 of 1983 of the 2nd Court of the Munsif at Serampur. The suit was brought against her by the opposite party for a declaration that he is owner of the suit properties by virtue of the registered deed of gift executed in his favour on 22-5-80 by his uncle late Prabhat Ranjan Khan who was the original owner of the properties.2. The case of the opposite party is that his uncle died on 14-6-80 and on 22-5-80 he executed a registered deed of gift conveying the suit properties to him (opposite party). The petitioner who is the daughter of the deceased was, however, realising rents from the tenants of the suit properties and interfering with his possession of the same in various other ways. As his right to the suit properties was clouded by the acts of the petitioner, he had to bring the suit for the reliefs stated above.3. The suit was valued a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-03-1986
Reported in : 1987CriLJ581
ORDERSudhangsu Sekhar Ganguly, J.1. This revisional application HD/1D/D779/86/HR has been filed for the quashing of the proceedings in Special Court case, 6 of 1970, Under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(e), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, together with the order dt. 30-3-1983 passed in it framing charge against the present petitioner under the provisions of the law mentioned above.2. It appears that the petitioner held the post of Deputy Assistant Director General in the office of the Director General of Ordnance Factories, Calcutta, in January 1961 and worked continuously in the Truck Section of that office up to 1966 by which time he was promoted as Assistant Director General. While posted in this office the petitioner handled theplacement of a number of supply orders for truck components required for production of Nissan and Shaktiman Trucks in the Gun Carriage Factory at Jabalpur. The complaint against the petitioner was that during the period 1-1-61 to 31-8-67 he acquire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-10-1986
Reported in : (1987)ILLJ41Cal
Mookerjee, J.1. By the order complained of in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Labour Department acting as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has rejected the prayer of the appellant, who is the petitioner before us for condonation of delay in filing its appeal under Section 7(7) of the said Act and has also dismissed the said appeal as time, barred. The Appellate Authority has not thereby committed any error jurisdiction and therefore we are unable to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with the said decision of the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.2. Manindra Kishore Chakraborty, the opposite party No. 3 in the Revisional Application, was a Lecturer of Philosophy in the City College. On 13th May, 1974 he had finally retired at the end of extended period of his service. On 15th June, 1981 he had purported to make an application under Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-19-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Cal107,91CWN262
Bhattacharjee, J.1. An award made on 28-11-77 was presented for registration to the Sub-Registrar on 25-11-83 and was admitted to registration on the same day. Could that be done after such a long lapse of time? That is the question that has come up for our consideration in this case arising out of a petition filed under Article 227.2. Under Section 23 of the Registration Act, an award, like any other non-testamentary instrument, is to be presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar within 4 months from the date of its execution. If, however, owing to urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, an award or other non-testamentary instrument is not presented for registration within 4 months of its execution, the Registrar, but not the Sub-Registrar, may direct that such document shall be accepted for registration on payment of fine provided the delay in presentation beyond the period of 4 months as aforesaid, does not exceed 4 months more. In other words, while ordinarily the period...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-08-1986
Reported in : 91CWN282,(1995)IIILLJ495Cal
Monoranjan Mallick, J. 1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by Sri S.N Banerjee, learned City Sessions Judge, Calcutta dated December 8, 1984 by which the order of conviction and sentence passed on the respondent under Section 85(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act has been set aside and the respondent No. 1 has been acquitted of the offences. 2. Facts are briefly as follows 3. The accused respondent No. 1 along with T.P. Ghosh and Amiyabala Ghosh, since deceased, were the partners of M/s. The Star Printing Works having its factory at No. 30, Shibnarayan Das Lane, Calcutta and, as such, the principal employers as defined in Section 2(17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act as the partners of the firm they were Covered under the Employees State Insurance Act and the code number was allotted to it was being numbered 41-2080 and as principal employers they were liable under Section 40 of the act to pay both the employers and employees shares of contribution in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-12-1986
Reported in : (1986)56CTR(Cal)185,[1987]164ITR466(Cal)
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Indian Oxygen Ltd., the assessee, in the assessment year 1976-77 the relevant accounting year ending on September 30, 1975. The Income-tax Officer while making the assessment disallowed deduction claimed under Section 80J in respect of a high purity gas manufacturing unit on the ground that the said unit commenced commercial production with effect from April 1, 1975. The Income-tax Officer allowed deduction only for six months in respect of the capital employed in respect of the said plant at the rate of 6%.2. In respect of other capital, the assessee included in the computation the value of the assets and liabilities at the beginning of the computation period and also the proportionate average of the increase or decrease of assets and liabilities during the year without considering the bank overdraft allocable to the said unit. The Income-tax Officer proceeded on the basis of the assets and liabilities as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-10-1986
Reported in : (1987)0CALLT179(HC)
Manash Nath Roy, J.1. The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India, Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the said Institute), is a body corporate and constituted under Section 2(f) of the Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the appellant was appointed as a Director of Research of the same sometime in September 1969. He as a petitioner moved and obtained Civil Order No. 15007 (W) of 1981, challenging the validity of the decision of the Council of the said Institute, as communicated to him by the Secretary of the same, by his letter dated 19th October 1981, whereby the said Secretary, further to his letter dated 23rd September 1981, informed him that he was directed by the Council of the said Institute to regret to inform the appellant that the Council of the said Institute was unable to allow him to withdraw his resignation, which was already accepted with effect from 1st September 1981 and as such, requested the appellant t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Decided on : Nov-26-1986
Reported in : (1987)(13)LC717Tri(Kol.)kata
1. These appeals relate to common issues. These were, therefore, taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No.C-152/84-Cal., vide Sr.in was filed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta as per order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi in Order in 1/R-Cus/Gr. dated 23.7.1984 under Section 129-D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the order dated 17.11.1983 passed by the said Collector. The other appeals, vide Serial Nos.2 to 10, were filed by the importers concerned against the respective order-in- original passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. (a) M/s Mansingka Brothers, respondent in , entered into a contract No. Oil/002/D/83 dated 15.3.1983 with M/s Kuok (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore for importing 1500 M/Tons of Stearin Fatty Acid. The goods were to be shipped in part consignments. The first consignment of 200.17 M/Tons of the goods arrived at Calcutta Port on 13.9.1983 per "SS Johneverett". The respondent fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-09-1986
Reported in : (1986)56CTR(Cal)206,[1987]165ITR416(Cal)
D.K. Sen, J. 1. Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd., the assessee, was a wholly owned subsidiary of Stewarts & Lloyds Ltd. of London (the U.K. company). In December, 1963, the assessee entered into a contract with the Indian Oil Corporation under which the work of erection of a pipeline at the Baroda Refinery of the Corporation was entrusted to the assessee. The contract was valued at Rs. 127.11 lakhs.2. The assessee commenced the work under the said contract in 1964. Initially, the work was expected to be completed within 15 months from commencement but in fact it took more than three and a half years to complete the same. In the meantime, on June 8, 1965, the assessee was converted into a public limited company under the Companies Act, 1956, but remained a subsidiary of the U.K. company which continued to hold 60 per cent. of the shares of the assessee.3. In executing the contract with the Indian Oil Corporation, the assessee incurred expenditure aggregating to Rs. 173.94 lakhs and accor...
Tag this Judgment!