Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-24-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Cal188,1979(2)CHN248,1980(6)ELT38(Cal)
A.N. Sen, J.1. At the hearing of this appeal from the judgment and order passed by P. K. Banerjee, J. on the 23rd of March, 1973, discharging the rule and dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sabyasachi Mukharji, and Murari Mohan Dutt, JJ., the Division Bench noted that from the contentions made on behalf of the parties before them the following points arose for consideration :--(1) Whether, by virtue of Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, the provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 are attracted for the contravention of Section 12 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, in relation to goods which had been exported beyond India. (2) Whether, when goods have been exported beyond India such goods may be said to be 'export goods' as defined in Section 2 (19) of the Customs Act, 1982 and liable to confiscation under Section 113 for the purp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-25-1979
Reported in : AIR1979Cal314
ORDER1. There are two applications before me for transfer of two suits; one filed before Sealdah Court and the other before Howrah Court, to this Court under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent. From the facts it would appear that series of proceedings have been taken in respect of a School named Jewish Girls School having its office at 63, Park Street, Calcutta. One Dr. (Miss) Subha Mitter was appointed principal of the said school and thereafter serious allegations were made by the members of Board of Management of the said School against Dr. (Miss) Subha Mitter for mismanagement, defalcation of accounts and appointment of a person to post of Vice-principal not properly qualified, with ulterior motive so on and so forth. Ultimately Dr. (Miss) Subha Mitter was removed from the said post which entailed numerous suits and proceedings in this court and in other courts. A list of the said proceedings are given in the petition itself. Ultimately the matter went up to the Supreme Court of India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-17-1979
Dipak Kumar Sen, J.1. This reference arises out of levy of sales tax on Cementation Patel (Durgapur), Burdwan, in the accounting periods being the four quarters ending respectively on 31st March, 1958, 31st March, 1959, and 31st March, 1960.2. Cementation Patel (Durgapur), the applicant, carrying on business as a contractor was at the material time registered as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. It was contended by the applicant in the various assessments to sales tax before different Commercial Tax Officers, inter alia, that it was not exigible to sales tax because its transactions consisted only of transfer of materials to its member-contractors and its own sub-contractors in connection with one particular work, namely, the construction of a steel plant at Durgapur. It was contended that such transactions were not sales and, in any event, the same had not been entered into in the course of any transaction of sale. The Commercial Tax Officers noted that payments...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-12-1979
Reported in : AIR1979Cal261
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. On 18-1-1978, the plaintiff instituted the above suit against the defendants for specific performance of the agreement dated 12-7-1977, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 1, its servants, agents and assigns from forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- under a Bank guarantee No. 19/77 given by the defendant No. 2 on 9-7-1977, perpetual injunction against the defendant No. 2 from making any payment in terms of the said Bank guarantee, decree for Rs. 93,691.92, Rs. 45,850/- and Rs. 35,836/- against the defendant No. 1 in terms of paragraphs 6, 7 and 10 of the plaint, alternatively an enquiry into damages, declaration that the notice dated 2-7-78 issued by the defendant No. 1 was null and void, Temporary injunction, receiver, etc.2. The facts alleged in the plaint were that on 12-7-1977 the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement in writing whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase 8000 metric tons of Sal seeds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-08-1979
Reported in : AIR1979Cal221
ORDERJyotirmoyee Nag, J.1. This Rule is directed against Order No. 122 dated 4-7-1978 passed by the learned Munsif in Title Suit No. 65 of 1975. The said Title Suit was filed for eviction by the petitioner on 28-2-1975 praying for eviction of the opposite party in respect of two rooms including a joint privy of premises No. 88, Debendra Ganguly Road, P. S. Shibpur, District Howrah. That suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and the same ground was made out in the notice to quit given by the petitioner on 3-12-1974. The petitioner is the landlord, purchaser from the previous landlord and accordingly though he had wanted the premises for his own use and occupation but on account of the bar under Section 13 (3A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act that ground was not stated in the notice nor was the suit filed on that ground. In February 1978 however, the three years' period having expired the petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-02-1979
B.C. Basak, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against certain actions taken by the respondent No. 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-company') in respect of recruitment of certain persons2. The facts of this case, so far as they are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case, are as follows:The respondent No. 2, General Insurance Corporation of India, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Corporation) was formed as a Government company in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act pursuant to Section 9 of the General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ('the said Act') . The respondent-Corporation was formed for the superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of general insurance. The respondent-company was incorporated under the appropriate Companies Act and before the said Act came into force was carrying on the business of...
Tag this Judgment!