Kolkata Court February 1992 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.
Minerals and Metals Trading Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC269,1992(58)ELT548(Cal)
Ajoy Nath Roy, J.1. This is an application on the part of the Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. for return or refund from the Customs Authorities of a sum of Rs. 20,97,487.35 on the ground that the same represents overpaid duty. The writ petitioner Corporation has exhausted its remedy upto the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Tribunal as provided under the Customs Act but has failed to obtain refund, mainly because the refund application was late by about a month. The order of the Tribunal dated 13th June, 1990 is annexed to the Writ petition.2. Mr. Mitra appearing for the respondents has prayed for time to file an affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. Mitra stated that his client would like to put in an affidavit showing facts about the excess payment of duty being made by the Writ petitioner by reason of its own mistake, and that it is by reason of the Writ petitioner's own inaction that the refund was not claimed within time. Mr. Mitra has also said that he would like to pu...
S.D.B. Chemical Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT526(Cal)
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. This is a writ application challenging a show cause notice dated 28th March, 1990, whereby a claim for unpaid Central Excise Duty is made by the respondent authorities for the period of 1-4-1985 to 31-7-1985.2. The respondent authorities have not yet been asked to file any Affidavit-in-Opposition but I am of the opinion that no such affidavit is necessary as the said show cause notice is bad in law as apparent on the face of it.3. An earlier show cause notice was issued for recovery of Central Excise Duty and for penalty upon the same writ petitioner for the years 1979-80 to 1984-85, all the years ending with the 31st of March. The earlier show cause notice is dated 25th April, 1986.4. It is clear from the said earlier show cause notice that Central Excise Duty was being sought to be recovered, upon the twin allegation, that the number of workers at the factory of the writ petitioner, was, according to the respondent, more than what was declared by the writ petition...
East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]204ITR435(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice has been issued for assessing escapement of income for the assessment year 1984-85. The date of the notice is August 13, 1991, which is beyond four years from the end of the assessment year in course of which the assessment proceedings were completed. The reasons for reopening the case as recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax on August 13, 1991, are as under :'In the original return filed on December 12, 1984, the assessee claimed depreciation amounting to Rs. 11,25,934. In the revised return, there was no change so far as this claim is concerned. In the claim made in the return, the assessee claimed extra depreciation over and above the normal depreciation in the case of old as well as new plant and machinery. Apparently, this claim was made as per the terms of item III(iii) of Appendix I to the Income-tax Ru...
In the Matter of Amalgamated Development Limited Vs. State of West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT459(HC),96CWN696
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. This Revisional application was moved before us on 10th of May, 1991 when it was directed to appear as a contested application four weeks after the Summer holidays and the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the application on the opposite party viz., State of West Bengal through the Land Acquisition Collector and affirm an affidavit of service. In pursuance of that direction, the matter was called on 29th of January, 1992 when an affidavit of service was filed on behalf of the petitioner, but since none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party (State), we directed the petitioner to serve a written notice on the office of the learned Legal Remembrancer, West Bengal, conveying the fixation of the matter, once again by us on the Wednesday following. The matter was appearing in the list and has been called on today for being heard out when receipted copy of a notice served on the office of the Legal Rememberancer, West Bengal has been produced by Mr. Ba...
Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indo Metal Industries
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: 1995LC193(Calcutta),1992(58)ELT539(Cal)
ORDER1. This is an application for stay of the operation of the order passed by the learned Court of the first instance dated 20th December, 1991 directing the Appellants to grant the refund of Rs. 10,70,973.04 to the Respondent by 15-1-1992.2. It appears that pursuant to the order dated 18th November, 1983 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal refund was due to the Respondent. The Department preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against the said order of the Tribunal which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27th April, 1984. The Respondent made an application before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for refund of the amount in terms of the order of the Tribunal, but that application was rejected by the Assistant Collector on 23-8-1989. The Respondent preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and the Collector allowed the said appeal setting aside the order of the adjudicating authority and directing him to recons...
Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Cal283,(1992)2CALLT96(HC)
1. In this suit the plaintiffhas claimed for possession of certain demised premises from the defendant. The facts of the case are not much in dispute and the principal question is one of law.2. By a lease dated 25th June, 1963 the plaintiffs became lessees of the demised premises under one Wachel Molla & Sons. The lease was to expire after a period of 21 years.3. The defendants in the instant suit became sub-tenants under the plaintiffs under another subsequent lease dated 17th July, 1964, for a period commencing from 1st April, 1964 and to expire with expiry of 24th June, 1984. The parties have not disputed before me that in so far as these long leases are concerned, they are outside the purview of the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.4. The instant suit was filed on the 16th April, 1984. The period of the defendants' leasehold had not run out by then. It is also not in dispute that so far as the lease as between the Wachel Molla and Vithalbhai is concerned, th...
Sri Banamali Neogi and ors. Vs. Sri Asoke Kumar Chattopadhyay and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT437(HC),96CWN886
Amulya Kumar Nandi, J.1. This, appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree awarded by the 2nd Court of the Additional District Judge, Midnapore to Title Appeal No. 30 of 1975.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the disputed 'ka' schedule property is absolute debuttar property of the deities and the kobala mentioned in the plaint schedule in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 is not binding on the deities. The plaintiff sued as a shebait of the deities.3. One Satya Kinkar, father of the plaintiff by virtue of a registered Deed of Settlement on 30-1-1952 endowed 'kha' schedule property to the deities and appointed three sons figuring as plaintiff and defendant Nos. 6 and 7 as shebaits of the deities. The 'kha' schedule property is a part of 'kha' schedule property. The plaintiff was born on 1-4-1951 and he attained majority on 1-4-1969. On attainment of majority he tried to take possession of the 'kha' schedule property. While defendant Nos. 1 to 5 refused t...
G.D. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT205(Cal)
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The petitioner has moved this writ petition challenging the decision contained in the letter dated 21-3-1985 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range C/4, Calcutta 'C Division wherein he stated that 'your product 'BOROLINE'' is classified under Cosmetics and Toilet Preparation falling under T.I. 14F(1). The Form 1 and Price list submitted by the petitioner were returned for re-submission after suitable amendment at an early date.2. It may be mentioned that there is a long standing dispute between the petitioner and the respondents as to the manner in which Boroline is to be classified. The petitioner's case is that in 1948 licence was granted to G.D. & Company to manufacture and sell Boroline as a drug and medicine under the Drugs Act, 1940 (now known as Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940) and the Rules made thereunder being Drug Licence No. D.L. 36/M. The said Licence has from time to time been renewed under the said Act. As per the requirement of Ru...
Jogendra Prasad Tiwari and ors. Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: (1992)1CALLT230(HC)
Shamsuddin Ahmed and Siba Prasad Rajkhowa, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.7.1990 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CO. 8195(W)/90 Under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The petitioners' case in short is that there are two rival Unions in the Zinjira Pole complex of the Food Corporation of India where the petitioners were posted. One of the Unions is affiliated to INTUC and the other to the CITU. The rival Union being a stronger one, was trying in various ways to Create difficulties for the petitioners. They have also filed criminal case against the rival Union which is still pending. It is alleged that the management of the Food Corporation of India in collusion with the said rival Union for teasing the petitioners have passed an order sending them for training out of the Depot but they did not succeed. Thereafter they have been transferred by the impugned order in the writ application to Cassipore Depot with the object that the petitioners...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Urmila Rungta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: (1992)105CTR(Cal)223,[1994]208ITR552(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J. 1. In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following common question for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83 for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of his investment as a partner in the firm, Messrs. Madgul Udyog, which is engaged in the business activity of construction and sale of multi-storeyed buildings consisting of flats ?' 2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee, on the relevant valuation dates, was a partner of a firm, Messrs. Madgul Udyog, engaged in the business of construction and sale of multi-storeyed buildings. The assessee claimed that the investments in the said firm were exempted under Section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act on the ground that the firm being engaged in the construct...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »