Kolkata Court April 1989 Judgments
Serampore Belting Works Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC264,1990(45)ELT546(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule was issued at the instance of the writ petitioner praying for declaration that Serampore Belting Works Limited is the manufacturer of transmission belting and is liable to be assessed to the excise duty on its manufacturing profit and manufacturing cost and for issuance of an appropriate writ to quash all orders of assessment made in respect of the said transmission belting manufactured by the petitioner and sold to Messrs. Goodyear India Limited and for other consequential reliefs as stated in the writ petition. It is further stated that the petitioner Company started manufacturing activities of rubber products at No. 52, J.N. Lahiri Road, Serampore, Hooghly since 1948 and the entire manufacturing activities in the said factory are carried on under the control and supervision of the Company by engaging its own workmen and with its own machinery. The petitioner is alleged to be the owner of the finished goods until and unless the same is sold to...
Tag this Judgment!Timshaw Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC412(Calcutta)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule was issued on 3.8.1982 at the instance of the writ petitioner, a private limited company, challenging the impugned orders dated 31st January 1981, 21st August 1981, and 1st January 1982, being in annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C respectively.2 It is stated in the writ petition that the writ petitioner is a small scale unit which undertakes job work like peeling veneer from logs supplied by manufacturers of plywood. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it peels 'timber in log form' on job work basis for Veneer Mills Private Limited, a Central Excise assessee for manufacture of plywood. The Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur issued a show cause notice on the petitioner saying that the petitioner had cleared commercial veneer (Tariff Item No. 68) without payment of duty and thus had contravened Rules 173F and 9(1) of Central Excise Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Notification No. 119/75-C.E. Excise Duty...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamed Sayeed Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal52,1990(26)ECC241,1990LC74(Calcutta)
ORDER1. In this application under An. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondent authorities in not allowing the petitioner to import Human Skeletons and parts thereof.2. Shortly stated the facts are that the petitioner carries on business of export and import. The chief business of the petitioner is export of Human anatomical specimens i.e. Human Skeletons and or parts thereof. The petitioner is a member of the Association of the Exporters for Anatomical specimen, registered in the financial year 1976-77. The petitioner as also the other members of the said Association are exporters of Human Anatomical specimens which are used for the stud) of Anatomy and Biology by different Medical and research and or educational institutions in different parts of the world. The purchasers of such human anatomical specimens include American, Japanese, European, Australian, and Far East organisations. The foreign exchange earnings of the petitioner have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Upen Das and ors. Vs. Lenoon Darji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT136(HC),94CWN346
S.K. Mookherjee, J.1. This second Appeal, at the instance of the defendants, is directed against the judgment of affrmance, dated 15th of December, 1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Jalpaiguri, in Original Civil appeal No. 11 of 1979 affirming the same, dated 24th of February, 1976 passed by the Learned Munsif, Jalpaiguri in O.C. Suit No. 129 of 1976.2. The facts necessary and relevant for adjudication of the dispute involved in the appeal are more or less admitted. The defendants 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition, being partition Suit No. 26 of 1951, of the Court of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Jalpaiguri, against defendants 5 to 16 and/or their predecessors-in-interest claiming partition of their 1 anna 15 gandas 2 karas 13 tills' share without impleading the present plaintiffs/ respondents and/or their predecessors-in-interest as parties and obtained an ex parte preliminary decree on 13.1.1955 and a final decree. The plaintiffs had instituted the i...
Tag this Judgment!Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1989
Reported in: 1989(25)LC398(Calcutta),1989(43)ELT41(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The instant Rule was issued on February 12,1982 and an interim order was passed to the effect that the adjudication proceedings will not continue until the following steps are taken:a) Samples are drawn upon giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity and in their presence and the samples so drawn jointly by the petitioner and the respondent authorities should be sent to the National Test House, Alipore under their joint seal for testing;b) The samples drawn should reach National Test House within one week after such drawing;c) On receipt of the report from the National Test House, copies of such report should be given to the petitioner and the respondent authorities.It was further directed that order, if any, made in the adjudication proceedings would abide by the result of the Rule. Further, so far as the taking of the materials in future for captive consumption is concerned the petitioner would be at liberty to do so without payment of any excise duty but th...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. Haripada Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal175
ORDER1. This is an application for setting aside an award dt. 20th Feb. 1987 made by the Umpire. In this matter the respondent raised claims in respect of the work carried on by the respondent and completed on or about 30th June, 1977. The disputes regarding the said claims were originaily referred to the joint Arbitrators. The joint Arbitrators made two different awards. Inasmuch as there was difference of opinion between the arbitrators. The disputes were referred to an Umpire who made his award on 20th Feb. 1987. Before the Arbitrators the respondent filed his claim for a sum of Rs. 2,60,033.95 p. on two heads. A sum of Rs. 2,39,901.32 p. was claimed against Item No. 1 of the supplementary tender No. 1 that is leaving shoring. On account of unjustified deduction made in lengths and breadths of RCC pipe a sum of Rs. 20,131.73 p. was claimed thus aggregating to a sum of Rs. 2,60,033.95 p. A further sum of Rs.2,21,028/-was claimed by way of interest on the aforesaid sum aggregating to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR493(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following six questions of law have been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the the case, the disallowance to be made under Section 40(a)(v)/40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of the assessee for the accounting years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the matter of rent should be on the line of the formula laid down in rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and not on the basis of the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee for providing accommodation to the employees in each of the said years ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reimbursement of medical expenses by the assessee to its employees is to be considered as perquisite, benefit or amenity for the purpose of Section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar Dhani Vs. Chairman, Suri Municipality and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT193(HC)
K. Ganguli, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays, virtually, for reinstatement in service.2. This is a good example of a bad petition. Neither the cause title nor the prayers make any sense. The grievances of the petitioner have not been properly formulated in the petition itself. Although ordinarily such petitions should not be encouraged and should be dismissed in limine but such an action would cause hardship to the petitioner. In my view a litigant should not be allowed to suffer for the incompetence of his lawyer.3. Bereft of verbiage the case of the petitioner is that for absenting himself without obtaining leave and for not complying with the orders of the superior officer, a charge-sheet was issued on 15th January, 1976 by the President of the Suri Municipal Committee. A copy of the said charge-sheet has been annexed to the writ petition and marked with the letter 'G' There were three charges levelled against the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Khudiram Ghosh Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT70(HC)
G.N. Ray, J.1. This writ petition has been moved with notice to the State Respondents and the learned counsel has appeared. It appears that the petitioner initially was a candidate for appointment to the post of Police Constable in the West Bengal State Police but he was not ultimately selected for appointment. He could not ascertain the reasons and made a representation to the Chief Minister, Government of West Bengal and he was informed by the Office of the West Bengal Police Directorate in reference to his representation addressed to the Chief Minister that he was not recruited because he was a married person. It may be noted that at that point of time married person was not entitled to be recruited as Police Constable, but such embargo has been lifted. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to the police authorities, inter alia, praying that his rejection was unfair and unjust and the Asstt. Inspector General of Police, West Bengal by his letter, dated July 25, 1985 which ...
Tag this Judgment!Sand Carrier's Owner's Union and others Vs. Board of Trustees for the ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal176,93CWN1095
ORDER1. This writ application was filed by three different Associations on behalf of its members against the notification No. 443 ublished in the Calcutta Gazette in its Extraordinary issue by Calcutta Port Trust on 10th Mar. 1988 whereby the dock permit fees was enhanced from Rs. 20.40 to Rupees 1,000/- per annum per vehicle. The petitioners claimed to be the associations of the operators of the lorries and traitors operating in Calcutta Port. In this writ application, a preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the writ application at the instance of the petitioners inasmuch as, the petitioners are societies who had filed writ application for the benefit of all its members.2. With regard to the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writapplication raised by the Respondents Mr.Arun Prokash Sircar learned Advocate -appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the writ petition was moved by the.Sand Carrier's Owners' Union represented byJata...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »