Kolkata Court February 1993 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.
Md. Sabir Ali Vs. Tahera Khatoon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1993
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT390(HC),I(1995)DMC222
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. On 12.2.92 I passed an order disposing of the revisional application after hearing the learned Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the records. Obviously that order was passed on merits although none appeared on behalf of the petitioner on call. Subsequently the petitioner filed the present petition for recalling the said order. It is argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that although the earlier order dt. 12.2.92 was passed on merits, this Court has the power to recall the said order and rehear the matter. In support of this submission he was referred to the decision of a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Nazeem v. Assistant Collector of Customs, 1992 Cr. L.J. 390 as well as a decision a of Single Judge of this Court in Bhudeb Mondal v. Lakindar Mondal, 1978 (2) CLJ. On the other hand the learned Advocate of the opposite party has attracted my attention to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Narayan Chandra ...
Paritosh Das Vs. Kalyani Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT416(HC),I(1994)DMC243
G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. It appears that the learned Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C. passed an ex parte order of interim maintenance awarding Rs. 150/- per month for the wife and Rs. 75/- each for the two children on 9.5.92. Thereafter the husband appeared and made an application before the learned Magistrate for reconsideration of the order of interim maintenance passed by him. The learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 24.8.92, it appears, virtually refused to reconsider his order on the ground that fee passed the said order ex parte. That does not seem to be a correct approach. The Supreme Court in Sm. Sabitri v. Gobinda Singh, 1986 Cr. LJ 41 has inter alia observed at page 43 that an order of interim maintenance may be made in an appropriate case ex parte pending service of notice of the application subject to any modification or even an order of cancellation that may be passed after the respondent is heard. Therefore, even if an ex parte order of inte...
Santosh Kumar Banerjee Vs. Sidheswar Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT407(HC),97CWN894
1. By this revision the defendant challenged the impugned order No. 38 dated 10.7.92 passed in T.S. 52 of 1991 by the learned Assistant District Judge, Alipore, appointing a receiver.2. Over the ancestral restaurant business under the name and style 'CAFE', the two brothers viz. the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a partnership agreement dated 1st August, 1976. As the plaintiff worked elsewhere for gain and could not engage full time for looking after the said restaurant business and as the defendant engaged full time for management of the said restaurant business, their allegation of shares was to the extent of 45% and 55% respectively, the business ran smoothly upto January, 1991 but from February, 1991, a dispute arose regarding the management and accounts of the business. In that agreement there was a clause for arbitration. As the defendant refused to send the matter to arbitration, the plaintiff made an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act before the learn...
Kanchanjanga Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT171(Cal)
ORDERSuhas Chandra Sen, J.1. This case arises an interesting question of law.2. The petitioner had imported 31.616 M. Ton of Prime Virgin HDPE Blow Moulding Grade at the price of U.S. $ 890 per M. Ton, c.i.f. Calcutta. The vessel carrying the said goods arrived at the Port of Calcutta some time in the 2nd week of January, 1991. On 29th January, 1991 the petitioner filed the Bill of Entry for warehousing of the said goods. The assessable value of the goods declared on the basis of the agreed price was U.S. $ 890 per metric ton, c.i.f., Calcutta. On 5th March, 1991 the Bill of Entry for warehousing was assessed by a proper officer of the Customs Department and an endorsement was made on the Bills of Entry that the same was being assessed provisionally and the valuation aspect was being kept open.3. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter the Clearing Agent as well as the representative of the petitioner went to the Customs Department's office and met the Assistant Collector of Cust...
Basant Kumar Bajoria Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR957(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1982-83, the following questions have been referred to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the loss determined in respect of the assessment for the assessment year 1982-83 should have been directed to be carried forward under Section 72(1) read with Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'SMC Bench of the Tribunal legally assumed jurisdiction in deciding the appeal when the loss returned was Rs. 7,18,840 ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this reference are that the assessee filed a return on September 22, 1983, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 relevant to the previous year ended on October 27, 1981. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on a loss of Rs. 94,060 but did not carry forward the same since the return was not filed within time. ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janata Film Exchange (P.) Limited.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1993
Reported in: [1993]202ITR532(Cal)
Head Note:INCOME TAXLoss--CARRY FORWARD--Delayed return--Application for extension of time for filing return neither dealt with nor order communicated--Presumption is that extension granted and return filed within extended time--Benefit of carry forward not be denied.HELD :Four applications were made by the assessee for extension of time. The ITO neither dealt with those applications nor disposed of such applications. When an application is made by the assessee for extension of time and no decision is rendered on such application, it must be presumed that the assessing officer has allowed time to the assessee to file the return within the extended period as asked for by the assessee. Even if the application for extension is rejected but the order of rejection is not communicated, such order will be treated as non est and the assessee will be entitled to presume that the application for extension has been allowed. The assessee not having been communicated of the fate of its extension ap...
Golden Machinery Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas460(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. These 23 appeals are directed against the orders all dated November 18, 1989, passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellant against the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Calcutta, all dated October 20, 1987.2. Shortly stated, the facts leading to these appeals are as under :The appellant, Golden Machinery Corporation, a partnership firm deals mainly in the sales and export of machinery. Acting on the information that the appellant firm was concerned in illegal under-invoicing of their exports to Bangladesh, unauthorised collection of the said amount of under-invoicing and making payment to various parties, the business premises of the said firm were searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate on March 2, 1987, resulting in seizure of various files and documents. It may also be mentioned that the residential premises of Jitraj Agarwal, a partner of the said firm, were also...
Sushil Kar and ors. Vs. Syed Mehdi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT331(HC)
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. By the instant revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code); the petitioners-accused have prayed the Court for quashing the relevant proceedings, being Case No. C/249 of 1986 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta, on the grounds set forth therein.2. On 23.7.86 the opposite party No. 1-complainant had filed a petition of complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, against the four petitioners-accused and another under Sections 324, 379 and 440, I.P.C., on the allegations made therein. It had been contended, inter alia, therein that he (complainant) is the acting Managing Mutwali of Imambara and Trust Estate at 10, Portugese Church Street, Calcutta-700 001, which is an exclusive Wakf property, now under the direct control of this Hon'ble Court and a Special Officer has also been appointed to look after the affairs of the said Trust. On 21....
Sita Devi Khemka Vs. Sarojini Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Cal116,(1993)1CALLT373(HC)
ORDERB.P. Banerjee, J.1. This is an appali-cation under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing or setting aside the order dtd. 16th January, 1993 passed by the Registrar, Small Cause Court, Calcutta in Suit No. 185 of 1992 and for other reliefs on being dispossessed from the Flat No. 4 now 2D, 2nd Floor, 12B, Russel Street, P,S. Park Street, Calcutta-71 and subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit challenging the validity of the entire proceedings being Suit No. 185 of 1992 alleging the same to be a nullity.2. The fact of the case in short is that the plaintiff/opposite paty filed a summary proceeding under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act in the Court of the Small Causes, Calcutta against the petitioner/ opposite party for recovery of possession alleging that the petitioner/opposite party was mere licensee under the plaintiff/opposite party in respect of the said suit flat and that the said licence was duly revoked. It was specifically all...
In Re: Muku Singh and ors. Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1993
Reported in: 97CWN949,(1994)IILLJ56Cal
Susanta Chatterjee, J.1. This matter has since been assigned to this Bench. It appears from the materials on record that the writ petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of dismissal under reference No. ECL/GM/NA/P-IV (31) 92/3081/623 dated March 3, 1992, and other consequential reliefs.2. It is stated in detail that the petitioners are employees of Gopinathpur Colliery, a Unit of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The petitioner No. 1 is a Fitter Helper and the Petitioner No. 2 is a Clerk and the petitioner No. 3, a Driller. It is alleged that for the first time on March 5, 1992 the petitioners have come to learn that their services have been terminated by the respondent No. 1, Eastern Coal-fields Limited having its registered office at Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh, District Burdwan, and is under the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and the same was published in the daily newspaper. It is stated that the dismissal has been made on the basis of the reports and information by the Gen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »