Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-16-1982
Reported in : (1983)36CTR(Cal)224,[1984]146ITR405(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amounts described as 'commission' in the agreement dated 9th October, 1956, between the asses-see and the Indian Iron and Steel Co. were in the nature of royalties and fees covered by the exemption provided in Rule l(ix) and Rule l(x) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, and were liable to be excluded from the total income of the assessee in computing the chargeable profits for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70?'2. This reference arises out of the assessment for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1969-70 under the provisions of the C.(P.) S.T. Act, 1964. Now it would be relevant to refer to the relevant provisions of the said Act. The First Schedule to the said A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-26-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Cal14
R.N. Pyne, J.1. The respondents Messrs. Ganpatrai Sagarmull and K. P. Ramaswami Nadar, as plaintiffs in the Court of the first instance, filed Suit No. 456 of 1965 against Union of India, the defendant in the suit and the appellant before us, for a decree for Rs. 10,017/- in favour of either or alternatively, an enquiry into demages and a decree for such sum as might be found due, interests, costs and other reliefs.2-3. The respondents case as stated in the plaint was as follows:--The respondent No. 1, Ganpatrai Sagarmull acted as a commission agent of the respondent No. 2, K. P. Ramaswami, that in any event if the respondent No. 1 was not competent to maintain the suit, the respondent No. 2 was entitled to the said sum by way of damages for non-delivery. After service of the due notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act, 1890 and Section 80 of C. P. C. the respondents on or about 16th March, 1965 filed the said suit against the appellant in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-26-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Cal564,1982(2)CHN54,86CWN866
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner/ decree-holder and is directed against an appellate Order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 62 of 1979 reversing the order of the trial Court it Misc. Case No. 48 of 1976 arising out of in application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil P.C. The application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code was filed by the opposite party No. 1 on 22-9-1976 for setting aside a sale held on 1-7-1968.2. The facts leading to the filing of the application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil P.C. may be briefly stated thus.3. One Gopal Chandra Chakraborty was the owner of 3 1/2 cottahs of land with a three storeyed building standing thereon, being premises No. 372/5, Russa Road South, subsequently renumbered as 3, Deshpran Sashmal Road, Gopal Chandra obtained a loan of Rs. 30,000/- from Metropolitan Insurance Company Limited. The decree-holder Nakul Chandra Dutta instituted Suit No. 459 of 1952 against opposite party No. 3 Panchanan ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-01-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Cal191
ORDERB.C. Ray, J. 1. This application is directed against three demolition orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta for demolition of the unauthorised structure i.e. the 14 storied building at 174, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, on the ground that copies of the order made under Section 414 (3) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 were not served on these petitioners who are occupants of all these 13 floors of the aforesaid premises and also that there has been a non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 560 and 561 of the said Act, It has also been challenged that there has been a total violation of the principles of natural justice by refusing to give the petitioners who are seriously prejudiced and affected by the impugned orders of demolition dated 15-5-78 and 21-4-81 by not being given any opportunity of filing any objections against the purported orders and of denying any opportunity of hearing of their objections against those orders. On hearing orally ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-24-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Cal220
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. 1. This interlocutory application originally came up before us for the stay of the operation of the order of the Court below dated January 27, 1982 in so far as the order directed the appointment of an auditor and gave various directions to him to act in accordance with the order.2. In course of hearing of this application all the parties appearing before us agreed that the entire appeal may conveniently be heard and decided by Court along with the application. We decided accordingly and ordered that the appeal be treated as on the day's list and directed the appeal to appear in the list from the next day of hearing along with the application until the hearing would be over and also directed that the filing of the paper book would be dispensed with. AH papers of the Court below including the order appealed from and the order admitting the appeal were directed to be treated as papers and documents in the appeal. The notice of appeal was waived by the parties. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-15-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Cal259
C.K. Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 19th Nov., 1979 of R.N. Pyne. J. dismissing the application made by the appellants, inter alia, for the plaint in the suit herein being rejected and taken off the file; alternatively for stay of the suit till the disposal of Title Suit No. 2297 of 1978 (Prahladrai Agarwalla and Ors. v. Shri Rabindranath Pal and Ors.) pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta; an injunction restraining the respondents herein from proceeding with the suit herein until the disposal of the said application. Facts material for the purpose of this appeal shortly are that, the respondents are owners of premises No. 23, Acharya Jagadigh Chandra Bose Road. Calcutta, within the Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. Their predecessor-in-interest Radhakanta Pal obtained a decree for ejectment in the city Civil Court against Dwariknath Das & Anr., the erstwhile lessees of the said premises. While the said decree was being executed the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-15-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Cal301
Ramendra Mohan Datta, J.1. This interlocutory application has now come up before us, inter alia, for stay of the operation of the judgment and order dated Jan. 12, 1982 passed by Deb J. The application before the learned Judge was for leave to revoke the authority of the respondent No. 2 who had been acting as the umpire in the pending arbitration proceedings arising out of the arbitration agreement dated Dec. 31, 1973. The prayer in the alternative is for removal of the umpire and for the appointment of a fit and proper person as the umpire and to continue the proceedings. There are other prayers, inter alia, for stay of the arbitration proceedings and for an injunction restraining the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings. The learned Judge passed the ad interim order restraining the umpire from proceeding with the arbitration reference until further orders. At the final hearing, however, the learned Judge dismissed the application making cost in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-03-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Cal199,86CWN423
Anil K. Sen, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent directed against a judgment and decree dated July, 13, 1971, passed by a learned single judge of this Court in an appeal from appellate decree No. 38 of 1964. Defendant No. 8 is the appellant before us who lost throughout.2. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract and injunction. The plaintiff/respondent instituted the suit on the allegation thatdefendant No. 1, the mother and as such natural guardian of minor defendant Nos. 2 to 7 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for self and on behalf of the minors to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,275/- by accepting an advance of Rs. 500/- to meet certain antecedent debts during the last illness of her deceased husband, the father of defendant Nos. 2 to 7 and executed and registered a Bainapatra on Dec. 12, 1960; it was stipulated in the agreement that defendant No. 1 having herself appointed the certificated gua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-03-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Cal440
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order passed by Mr. Justice Salil Kumar Roychoudhury on 11th of February, 1981 granting the stay asked for and directing the parties to take immediate steps for initiation of the reference under the arbitration agreement contained in the contract mentioned in the plaint. The judgment was passed on an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1'940 for stay of Suit No. 736 of 1978 instituted by I.T.C. Ltd. v. G. J. Fernandez. Before I refer to the relevant averments in the plaint it will be important to understand the background under which this application came to be made. The suit was filed on 29th of September, 1978 by the Charterer, for a declaration that the contract and modifications mentioned in the plaint were void and illegal and a decree for Rs. 39,64,341/- or an enquiry as to what amount was due to the plaintiff. In that suit instituted by I. T. C. Limited there were two defendants namely, G. J. Fernan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-23-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Cal307,87CWN450
M.M. Dutt, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellants, namely, the Union of India, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Steel, Mines and Coal (Department of Mines) and the Controller of Aluminium have challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge made absolute the Rule Nisi issued on the application of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as HINDALCO, and one of its share-holders, under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the writ application, the respondent HINDALCO challenged the propriety and legality of five orders of the Central Government, all dated Oct. 4. 1979 under the Aluminium Control Order, 1970 passed under Section 3 ef the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The legality and constitutional validity of the provisions of Clauses 4A and 4B of the Aluminium Control Order were also challenged in the writ application.2. At all material times HINDALCO carried and still carries on the ...
Tag this Judgment!