Kolkata Court January 1993 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. General Fibre Dealers Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1993
Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Cal)596
ORDERJORDAN KACHCHAP, J.M. :The two appeals by the Revenue related to the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85 and the cross objection by the assessee relates to the asst. yr. 1983-84. Since common points are involved in these matters and, as such, we dispose them of by this common order.ITA No. 1626(Cal)/1989 :2. In this appeal the Revenue have sole grievance against the deletion order of Rs. 44,100 being capital gain, holding that the compensation received on acquisition of a part of the tea garden could not be treated either as business income or as capital gain.3. It is to be noted that the assessee-company received Rs. 44,100 by way of compensation for acquisition of lands which were surrendered in 1975, 1976 and 1978. The Assessing Officer considered the compensation as capital gain and brought it to tax. The CIT(A) directed to delete the same with an observation that the amount in question should not be treated either as business income or as capital gain.4. According to Shri S. C. Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Tapati Bag Vs. Patitpaban Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT468(HC),97CWN1188
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. By an order dated the 25th August, 1988 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Suri framed charge against the accused opposite party No. 1 under Section 376 I.P.C. for committing rape on one Smt. Tapati Bag. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also took the plea of the accused on that charge and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is obvious that the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge and took the plea of the accused by exercising the power conferred by Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, on 6th November, 1990 the accused filed a petition before the learned Court of. Additional Sessions Judge for reconsideration of charge and on that petition the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated the 20th November, 1990 reconsidered the question of framing of charge and on reconsideration of the materials was of the view that no framing of charge was warranted against the p...
Tag this Judgment!Hinterland Seamen Union Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1993
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT49(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed by Hinterland Seamen Union against Union of India and the Director General of Shipping, Bombay besides the Secretary (Shipping and Transport), Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Director of Shipping Services, Port Blair and the Surveyor in-charge, Mercantile Marine Department, Port Blair. The petitioner has prayed inter alia :(a) injunction restraining the respondents, their subordinates agents and/or each of them from giving effect and/or further effect to the impugned order of punishment for forfeiture of wages of those seamen dated 31st March, 1992 passed by the Shipping Master, Port Blair pursuant to the suo moto purported enquiry conducted by him;(b) injunction restraining the Director of Shipping Services, Port Blair acting as Shipping Master pursuant to the order vide No. A-36019/ 1/89-MA dated 18th December, 1989, issued by the Under Secretary, Surface Transport (Shipping Wing), Government of India from acting as...
Tag this Judgment!Asit Kumar Barman Vs. Radha Barman @ Bauri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ955,97CWN1146,II(1994)DMC321
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order and judgment dated the 6th July, 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 1991 whereby he reversed the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur by which the learned Magistrate dismissed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. By his impugned order the learned Sessions Judge granted maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month in favour of the opposite party herein. The Opposite Party herein Smt. Radha filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 20th June 1987 alleging inter alia that she was married to the petitioner herein Asit Kumar Barman more than 20 years back and thereafter they stayed together as husband and wife, but during sometime past the petitioner herein started ill-treating her and ultimately on 17th June, 1987 she was abused, assaulted and driven away from his residence and she thereafter residin...
Tag this Judgment!Asit Kumar Barman Vs. Smt. Radha Barman Alias Bauri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT249(HC)
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order and judgment dated the 6th July, 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 1991 whereby he reversed the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur by which the learned Magistrate dismissed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. By his impugned order the learned Sessions Judge granted maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month in favour of the opposite party herein. The Opposite Party herein Smt. Radha filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on 20th June, 1987 alleging inter alia that she was married to the petitioner herein Asit Kumar Barman more than 20 years back and thereafter they stayed together as husband and wife, but during sometime past the petitioner herein started ill-treating her and ultimately on 17th June, 1987 she was abused, assaulted and driven away from his residence and she was thereafter r...
Tag this Judgment!Tribeni Tissues Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT177(Cal)
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. On the oral prayer by the petitioner on the ground that Tribeni Tissues Limited has now merged with I.T.C. the prayer for amendment is allowed.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the decision of the Collector of Central Excise and Customs West Bengal, Calcutta dated 8th of May, 1981. By this order the Collector has held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 45/73-C.E., dated 1-3-1973 as amended could be extended to the petitioner in respect of certain types of paper manufactured by the petitioner. The dispute is as to the meaning of the proviso which is as under :-'Provided that(i) the said paper is manufactured in a factory having no plant attached thereto for making bamboo pulp.There is no dispute that the petitioner is otherwise entitled, under the notification, to get the benefit of the aforesaid notification. The petitioner's case is that the proviso does not stand in the petitioner's way because ...
Tag this Judgment!A and N Fish Processing Project Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Cal145,(1993)2CALLT184(HC)
ORDER1. Having heard Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee for the petitioner and Mr. R. Shiv Saroop for the respondent Administration, it appears that the writ petitioner hasprayed inter-alia: (A) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents and each one of them (i) to cancel, rescind and/or withdraw the impugned memo dated 13th November 1991 issued by the Assistant Secretary Respondent No. 7 herein, forthwith; (ii) to consider the application of the petitioner company for grant of allotment of lease for waste land of Brackish water Prawn culture after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and on the basis of micro-level survey team's report and the report of the Tahsildar of Port Blair dated 2nd November 1987 as well as the order dated 17th October 1988 passed by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and pass a speaking and reasoned order and grant allotment in favour of the petitioners on payment of usual charges for any area within Andaman. (B) A writ in the nature o...
Tag this Judgment!T. Nathan and Six ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-1993
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT68(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. This first mandamus appeal is against the judgment of a single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners/appellants praying, inter alia :--(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents their agents, subordinates and/or each of them to act in terms of the instructions issued by the Government of India vide O.M. No. 5(25)/83-BPE(PESB) dated 6th March, 1985 and O.M. No. 28016/5/85-Estt. (C) dated 31st January, 1986 under the Rule 110 of the Fundamental Rules and to treat the petitioners' deputation Foreign Service with the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., a Central Public Enterprises on immediate absorption basis and not to revert them to their parent department (Amalgamated Clerical Grade) Andaman and Nicobar Administration;(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents their agents, subordinates and/or each of them to allot t...
Tag this Judgment!Smith Stanistreet Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Nester Pharmaceuticals (P.) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT234(HC),1993(1)CHN368,[1995]82CompCas395(Cal),97CWN349
P.K. Majumdar, J. 1. This is an application by the applicant for stay of the operation of the judgment and order under appeal dated September 7, 1992, passed in Company Petition No. 155 of 1992 (Smith Stanistreet Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) and all proceedings thereunder. Smith Stanistreet Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is the appellant. 2. The petitioning creditor, Nester Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, presented an application under Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, for winding up of the appellant-company on the ground, inter alia, that the company iscommercially insolvent. According to the petitioning creditor, the appellant-company was indebted to the respondent petitioning creditor for a sum of Rs. 11,54,244.72 and after giving credit for payments, the balance sum was to the extent of Rs. 10,37,358.17 which sum the appellant-company failed to pay. Statutory notice was served on th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Om Prakash Kapoor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1993
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ844Cal
ORDERParitosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.The present writ petition was moved challenging the order of suspension dated December 18, 1980, being Annexure 'G' to the petition, on behalf of Om Prakash Kapoor, Deputy Manager (Administration), Braithwaite & Co. Limited.2. It appears that in view of the report submitted by the Cental Bureau of Investigation, Government of India, that a criminal case has been instituted against the Deputy Manager (Administration) of the Company, the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and he was directed to be paid 50% of the salary by the said order of suspension dated December 18, 1980.3. When this writ petition was moved before me by Mr. S.K. Kapoor, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in presence of Mr. R.M. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the respondent Company and Mrs. Archana Sengupta, learned Advocate for the Union of India, this Court after passing a reasoned order, inter alia, directed the Managing Director of the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »