Kolkata Court October 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Diptendu Nayek and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT193(HC),93CWN119
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The question that has arisen for the consideration of this Special Bench is as to Whether a person can make an application to the High Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after making a similar application under the same Section to the Court of Sessions without success. Two of our learned Judges, sitting in Division have differed on this question, Khastgir, J., holding that such an application is maintainable and that the earlier Division Bench of this Court in Amiya Kumar Sen v. State (1979 Criminal Law Journal 288) to the contrary was; wrongly decided, while A.C. Sengupta, J., holding such an application to be incompetent and that the aforesaid Division Bench decision laid down the correct law. 2. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, dealing with 'direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest', generally referred to id common legal parlance as 'anticipatory bail', provides that'(1) When ...
State of West Bengal Vs. India Construction Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT176(HC)
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.This is an application by State of West Bengal under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award, dated 18th March, 1988 made and published by the sole arbitrator Mr. Anil Kumar Mitra. This is art arbitration without the intervention of the Court and the arbitrator is a retired Chief Engineer of Irrigation and Waterways Department of the Government of West Bengal.1. In response to a notice inviting tender the respondent No. 1 M/s. India Construction Company, the claimant before the arbitrator, submitted tender at the rate of 2.97% above the petitioner's schedule of rates for an aggregate sum of Rs. 2,49,97,466. A similar rate had also, been quoted by another tenderer M/s. B. C. Agarwala & Co., and the total work was divided between the said two tenderers the respondent No. 1 herein and M/s. B. C. Agarwala & Co. into 50:50. The work Order was issued by the Executive Engineer Teesta Barrage, Division No. I on 10th December, 1980 and late...
Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal230
ORDERBhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. This wirt application wasmoved by the petitioners, inter alia, prayingfor a writ in the nature of Mandamuscommanding the respondent No. 2 to issuethe 'No Objection Certificate' in the formprescribed in Appendix IV-B of the Hand-Book of Import and Export Procedure forthe year 1985-88 forthwith, entitling thepetitioners for the Import Licence for 10,000metric tonnes of raw materials i.e. re-rollablescrap (cutting of semi-billets, used rails andscrap cuttings and bars as was permissible tobe imported as on 30th June, 1987 in thename of the petitioner No. 1 for direct importand for certain other reliefs. 2. The facts of this case in short are that the petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of M. S. Rounds, Round Bars, Plates, Angles etc. and are the Actual Users of raw materials i.e. Carbon Steel, Re-rollable Scrap, which is comprehensive terminology and covers in its purview rails, structural, plate cutting, billet cutting etc. The commodity in que...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1988
Reported in: [1990]184ITR213(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, two questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment years 1972-73, 1974-75 and 1976-77, one at the instance of the assessee. The question which has been referred to this court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III, Calcutta, is as follows : 'Whether, on a proper construction of Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that borrowed capital should be treated as part of the capital employed for computing the relief under Section 80J ?' 2. This question is now concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) . Following the said decision, we answer the question referred to this court by the Revenue in the negative and in favour of the Revenue, 3. The other question which has been ref...
Dibrugarh Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR20(Cal)
A.K. Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for the assessment year 1970-71 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no appeal would lie under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with reference to the levy of interest under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The facts relating to this reference, are that after the completion of the assessment, the Income-tax Officer found the interest chargeable under Section 139 of the Act should be Rs. 9,816 and not Rs. 9,214 as originally assessed. The assessee was given opportunity to raise objections when notice under Section 154 was served upon it. The assessee, however, did not raise any objection to the proposed enhancement. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, rectified the assessment under Section 154 by enhancing the interest pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›