Kolkata Court March 1990 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.
Sharawan Kumar Agarwal Vs. Shrinenp Investment Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas52(Cal),94CWN482
P.D. Desai, J. 1. By an order passed on August 3, 1988, the Hanuman Cotton Mills Ltd. was wound up and the official liquidator was directed to take possession of the assets of the company. On September 2, 5, 1988, the official liquidator took possession of the assets which comprised, inter alia, the plant, machinery, land and building of the manufacturing unit situate at Fuleshwar, Howrah. 2. On October 6, 1988, the official liquidator sought a direction from the learned company judge (hereinafter referred to as 'the court') for the appointment of a valuer to value the assets. By an order passed on December 22, 1988, a valuer was appointed. The valuer submitted his report on April 12, 1989, in which the assets were valued at a little above rupees one erore.3. On April 21, 1989, the court issued directions for the sale of the assets of the company (in liquidation), including the factory premises, as per inventory, by public auction and by inviting sealed tenders upon advertisement, one ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Griffon Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: [1993]201ITR5(Cal)
S.C. Sen, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-lax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), read with Section 18 of the Companies (Profits ) Surtax Act, 1964 ( ' the Surtax Act ' ) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal wus correct in holding that whether the deposit under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income-tax) Scheme, 1976, has to be considered as a payment of surcharge within the meaning of Rule 2(i) of the First Schedule to the Surtax Act is a debatable issue and in that view cancelling the order passed under Section 13 of the Surtax Act ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1977-78. The facts, as found by the Tribunal, are as under :' The facts, in brief, are that the Surtax Officer, by his order dated January 20, 1979, determined the net chargeable profit under Section 6(2) of the Act at a sum of Rs. 16,65,219 and determined the surtax payable by the assessee-company for the assessm...
Tota Mia and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT235(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. The petitioners, who are 112 in number, are all appointed as 'contract labourers' for up-keeping of the forests and for prevention of damages of the trees under the Range Officers of different districts, being respondents Nos. 5 to 7 in the instant writ petition.2. At the time of the admission of the writ petition on January 21, 1988, Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. having issued the Rule directed the parties to maintain 'status quo' regarding petitioners' service until further orders and by virtue of the said order of 'status quo' the petitioners still performing their duties as 'contract labourers' till this date.3. Mr. Arun Prakash Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the final hearing of the writ petition, has submitted the following facts for consideration of this Court.4. In 1948, the West Bengal Private Forest Act was enacted to provide for conservation of forest and for afforestation in certain areas in West B...
State of West Bengal Vs. Ashok Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT369(HC),94CWN897
Ganendra Narayan Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision made by the learned trial Judge in Civil Rule No. 4642(W) of 1978. By the aforesaid judgment the writ petition made by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 was allowed by the learned trial Judge and the State of West Bengal and its officers were restrained from giving any effect or from acting pursuant to or on the basis of the impugned order dated May 19, 1979, the Government Orders dated March 23, 1978 and May 6, 1978 and the State of West Bengal and its officers were also restrained from altering the position of the writ petitioners on the basis of an alleged test result being Annexures 'C', 'D' and 'E' to the writ petition and also restraining the State of West Bengal and its officers from giving any promotion for appointment in terms thereof and from taking away any benefit of giving new Intermediate Selection Grade given to the petitioners. It appears that after the introduction of the Intermediate Selection Grade, on ...
Manindra Kumar Ghosh Vs. Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT430(HC),95CWN119
Ganendra Narayan Ray. J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Rule No. 2882 (W) of 1981. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of punishment imposed on the writ petitioner respondent.2. It may be noted here that the writ petitioner respondent No. 1, Manindra Kumar Ghosh also preferred a cross-objection and/or cross-appeal against the judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding was not at all maintainable at the instance of the appellant company and there was no occasion to initiate any disciplinary proceeding against him by the appellant company.3. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Financial Controller of Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited. The petitioner was transferred on deputation to National Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd., at Nepanagar and he worked there from 4th June, 1976 to 18th October, 1977 and thereafter he was brough...
Associated Industrial Traders and ors. Vs. Uttarpara-kotrung Municipal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT127(HC)
Khwaja Mohammad Yusuf, J.1. The petitioners moved the writ court against the Memo dated 28th August, 1987 issued by the Vice-Chairman of the Uttarpara Kotrung Municipality. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners having 40% and 60% of shares, respectively. The registered partnership firm was established in January 1965 but the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are carrying on the business of manufacturing various goods since 1964 on obtaining the trade licence from the Uttarpara-Kotrung Municipality. The office of the petitioners is located at 225, Dwarik Jungle Road, Uttarpara, and the factory is situated at 53, Dwarik Jungle Road (previously Holding No. 108) in Kotrung. The said Holding No. 53, Dwarik Jungle Road was purchased with the money of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 by a registered Conveyance dated 22nd April, 1966 but the name of the respondent No. 5, Sanjiblal Bose (who is the full brother of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3) wa...
Smt. Archana Guha Vs. Ranjit Alias Runu Guha Neogi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2012
M.N. Roy, J.1. The appellant above-named, on or about 20th August 1977, filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, against respondent No. 1 and other four Police officials alleging the commission of offences under Sections 325, 331, 348 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate after perusing the complaint took cognizance and thereafter, examined the complainant and nine other witnesses and by an order dated 17th October 1977, diercted the issue or summons against respondent No. 1 under Sections 166, 333/34, 331/34, 348/34 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and also directed the issue of summons against the other four accused persons more or less of similar sections as indicated earlier. Thereafter, by an order dated 20th December 1978, the learned Magistrate committed the respondent No. 1 along with others to the City Civil and Sessions Court, Calcutta for trial under the sections as mentioned above.The case of th...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mulchand Bagri.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1990
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Cal)206
ORDER--Failure to make enquiries alleged--Finding of Tribunal that assessing officer had actually made necessary enquiries--Revision vitiated.HELD :The finding of the Tribunal was that the ITO had Eactually made an enquiry into the sale of silver utensils. Therefore, the CIT was not right in his conclusion that the case of the assessee had been accepted by the ITO without any enquiry. This finding of fact has not been challenged. The Tribunal having come to a conclusion that the ITO had made enquiries about the sale of the silver utensils, the CIT was not right in coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the ITO was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because he had not made the necessary enquiry in this regard. APPLICATION :Also to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 Revision under s. 263--JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER--Order of assessing officer pursuant to directions under s. 144B--Is order passed under s. 143--Therefore, revisable--Asst. yr. 1979-80 be...
Mahindi Kumar and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Cal27,94CWN633
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. In this appeal an application for interim order has been made by the writ petitioners appellants. The appellants moved a writ petition for the approval of the names of nominees in Sarengdih Gram Panchayat under S. 210 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act on the basis of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 29th December, 1988. It may be mentioned here that if there is no elected female member and/or member from the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in Gram Panchayat then under S. 210 of the Panchayat Act, the members of the Gram Panchayat can make a resolution for nomination of such female member and/or member from scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in the Gram Panchayat. On the basis of such resolution the Government on approving the names gives a publication nominating such members in the Gram Panchayat. Theappellants stated that although some names were recommended by the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 29th December, 1988 while the final approval of s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›