Kolkata Court September 1989 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.
Mohit Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: 94CWN789,(1991)IILLJ462Cal
G.N. Ray, J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dated May 26, 1988 issued by the Superintendent, West Bengal Government Press, Alipore, promoting the respondent No. 4, Sri Sasanka Kumar Majumdar to the post of Composing Overseer. The petitioner has contended that such order of promotion was passed unjustly, arbitrarily superseding the petitioner who was senior to the respondent No. 4 in the cadre of Section Holder which is next below the post of Composing Overseer. Immediately after the said order, the petitioner made a demand for justice, but such demand was not acceded to and the writ petition was moved in July, 1988. The petitioner has contended that the petitioner has adequate academic qualifications and technical know-how to get the said post of Composing Overseer. He was originally appointed as Mono - Caster in the fluctuating establishment with effect from August 4, 1952. The petitioner was duly recommended by the Employment Exchange and he qualified in the competiti...
In Re: Smt. Santi Rani De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT220(HC),94CWN640
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction on the respondents to make the full payment of the provident fund money lying in Account No. WB/1609/280 of Kamakshya Chandra De to the petitioner.2. Although Counsel have appeared for the respondents, yet no affidavits in-opposition have been filed by the said respondents. The statements and allegations made in the petition go unchallenged and uncontroverted and have to be taken on their face value.3. The short case of the petitioner is as follows :The petitioner is the wife of one Kamakshya Chandra De who was a workman in M/s. Kedar Rubber ., at 92, Narikeldanga Main Road, Calcutta-700054 which was an industrial establishment and the workman of the said concern were covered by the relevant legislation relating to the provident fund.4. The husband of the petitioner was in permanent service of the aforesaid employer and he was regularly contributing in provid...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kusum Products Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: (1992)104CTR(Cal)401
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in arriving at the finding that the assessee company is not a closely held company and whether such finding is otherwise unreasonable and/or perverse (2) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Tribunal relied upon irrelevant and partly irrelevant materials and ignored relevant materials in coming to its finding that the assessee company is a company in which the public are substantially interested ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1967-68 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 31st March, 1967.3. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that out of 80,000 ordinary shares, 50,000 shares were held by public limited companies. The shares were also quoted in the Calcutta Stock Exchange. The AAC had noted the name of different companies whi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: (1992)103CTR(Cal)426
ORDER IN TIME--Time essence of contract--Amount paid pursuant to default clause--Obligation arose in the course of carrying business of buying and selling goods--Deduction to be allowed.HELD :The payment was made on account of the contractual obligation under the agreement. When the goods were not delivered within the stipulated period, an extra amount, designated `penalty' had to be paid. This was done in course of carrying on the business by the assessee. Usually time is not of the essence of the contract but the parties are entitled to make it so by inserting a specific clause in the contract. The parties are entitled to fix the time within which the goods must be delivered and to stipulate that if there is any failure to deliver the goods within the contracted period, extra money will have to be paid to compensate the buyer for non-delivery of the goods in time. The amount paid is allowable.Income Tax Act 1961 s.37(1) Business expenditure--DIFFERENCE PAID ON CANCELLATION OF CONTRAC...
New Barrackpore Mini Bus Owners' Association and others Vs. District M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal268
ORDER1. This writ application is directed against the show cause notice under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 dated April 13, 1987 issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta Region for cancellation of permit under Section 60 of the Act of 1939 and the order of requisition dated 25th April, 1987 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas North, Barasat (the District Magistrate hereafter) under Section 3 of the West Bengal Requisition of Vehicles Act, 1979 (for short the said Act hereinafter) read with Notification No.5517/WT dated April 14, 1987 of the Transport Department, Government of WestBengal. Order dated April 14, 1987 was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Transport Department in the manner follows:--'No5517-WT Government of West Bengal Transport Department Dated 14-4-1987. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the power conferred by Section 9 of the West Bengal Requisitioning of Vehicles Act, 1979, the Governor is pleased t...
Sohan Lal Baid Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal168,94CWN531
ORDERDesai, C.J. 1. The appeal is taken up for hearing by treating it as included in the day's cause list.2. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the trial Court on April 6, 1989 in C.R. No.713(W) of 1988. The appeal raises the question as to the power, authority and jurisdiction of the trial Court (Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee) to pass the said order. 3. The appellant (Sohanlal Baid) is the original Writ Petitioner. The eighth respondent herein initiated a proceeding against the appellant and a few others including Chhaganlal Baid and Kundanmall Baid, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah, 24-Parganas (South), seeking investigation in respect of an alleged offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Court directed the fifth respondent herein to inquire into the complaint and to submit a report. The case was thereupon registered as Chitpur Police Station Cas...
British Airways Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: (1992)92CTR(Cal)227,[1992]193ITR439(Cal),[1992]54TAXMAN470(Cal)
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J. - The Tribunal has referred the following question of law under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,(i) the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had failed to comply with the relevant provisions of section 192 and section 200 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently attracting the provisions of section 201 (1A) of the Act ?(ii) the Tribunals decision that the levy and collection of interest under sub-section (1A) of section 201 is not hit by the limitation prescribed in section 231 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law ?'In this case, the assessment year involved is 1970-71 for which the corresponding accounting period is the year ending on March 31, 1970.The facts as found by the Tribunal are as under :The assessee, an employer-company, has six expatriate (contract) employees during the financial year in question to whom the company paid certain tax...
Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: (1992)94CTR(Cal)46,[1992]193ITR457(Cal)
SUHAS CHANDRA SENT J. - The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to deduct income-tax at source under section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from furlough pay which was payable in terms of the contract of service and was paid to the expatriate officers of the assessee in sterling in the U. K. outside the territories of India 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the fact that the tax could not be recovered from the assessee because of the provisions of section 231 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would not stand in the way of the liability of the assessee to pay interest; under section 201 (1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the proceedings initiated by the Income-tax Officer for levy of interest under section 201 (1A) of Act are not barred by limitation 3. Whe...
Narayan Chandra De Vs. Pratirodh Sahini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1991Cal53,94CWN579
ORDER1. A short but very interesting question has come up for decision in this revision.2. By an order dt. 2-3-89 Munsif, 4th Court, Howrah found that the counter-claim preferred by the defendant in Title Suit No. 140 of 1985 was not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the order the petitioner prefers this revision.3. The opposite party has raised a preliminary objection. It is urged that the order is a decree and therefore revision is not maintainable. An appeal shall lie if it is a decree, and in that event the order of the trial Judge is not open to challenge in this court which exclusively deals with revisions.'4. Section 2(2) of Civil Procedure Code defines decree.5. Relevant rules of O. 8 are reproduced.(Rule 6A(2)).(Rule 5A(4)).(Rule 6D).(Rule 6G).6. The counter claim therefore for all intents and purposes is a suit filed by one figuring as defendant in another suit filed by the plaintiff, so the dismissal of the counter claim on the ground that it is not maintain' able amounts to ...
Santa Kumar Das and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1559
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order dt. May 17, 1984 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, rejecting the contention of the accused that the proceeding initiated under the Essential Commodities Act for violation of the provisions of Para 21 of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957 is a nullity. The only contention which has been urged in support of this rule is that since the case was initiated by a Sub-Inspector attached to the District Enforcement Office, the proceedings are void. The contention is that only Sub-Inspector or officers above the rank of Sub-Inspector attached to the Enforcement Branch could initiate proceedings for the purpose of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957.2. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the Division Bench decision in Kamala Ranjan Dey v. The State reported in (1982) 86 Cal WN 917 : (1983 Cri LJ NOC 90). In that case the same contention was raised. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »