Kolkata Court March 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.
Sk. Abdur Rahim Vs. Amal Kumar Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1993
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT278(HC),97CWN1151
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. The question that falls for consideration in connection with this revisional application is whether in view of the provisions of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 a complaint can be filed by a person holding power of attorney of the payee of the cheque in respect of which an offence has been committed under Section 138 of the said Act. The opposite party herein, Ammal Kumar Banerjee filed a complaint as the authorised representative of one G.S. Tewari Ganesh Shankar Tewari who was the payee of the concerned cheque issued by the petitioner herein. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 runs thus :'Section 142. Cognizance of offences-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 132 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee or, as the case may be, the holder in due course of the cheque;(b) such complaint is m...
Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Assistant Collector of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1993
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT79(HC),1993(66)ELT574(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioners carry on business of manufacturing jute. The question involved in this writ petition is whether jute bags with polythene liner are entitled to the benefit of Modification No. 65/87-C.E. dated 1.3.87 (as amended) issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules 1944.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The bags in question have been manufactured by the petitioners for some time past and are classified under Sub-heading No. 6301.00 of Chapter 63, Section XI to the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 (referred to as the Act). Sub-heading No. 6301.00 relates to textile articles not elsewhere specified including blankets (other than of wool), tarpaulins, tents, sails for boats. The prescribed rate of duty against the subheading is 12% ad valorem. The Notification No. 65/87-CE dated 1.3.87 as amended (referred to as the Notification) exempted various goods described in the notification from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as ...
Rita Sengupta Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT217(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned 2nd Special Court, Calcutta dated 15.7.88 in case No. 4 of 1982.2. The story briefly : The profile of the prosecution case is that one Dilip Kr. Ghosh is hauled up for committing offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.3. While the petitioner was working as an employee of Anthropological Survey of India, he availed himself of the leave travel concession facilities provided by the Govt. which included both railway and bus fare. He also claimed such concessional fare for the to and fro journey for self and also for his dependants who actually were not his dependants. He put up a final bill, dated 26.6.79, for a sum of Rs. 3,189.10, on the basis of a money receipt issued by her who was one of the partners of the travelling agency conducting the tour.4. Ultimately, it came to the surface during an inquiry that the journey was never undertaken in the ...
Barun Sengupta and ors. Vs. Shiba Prasad Mukhopadhay and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT293(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. This rule was issued for quashing the proceedings of C.R. Case No. 501 of 1987 pending disposal before the learned S.D.J.M., Hooghly, Sadar when cognizance was taken for allegedly committing an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.2. I shall now set out the background in which the litigation was launched. The complainant has an illustrious social career who is an active member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). He is also the Sabhadhipati of the Hooghly Zilla Parishad. He has, apart from his illustrious career, commendable performance as such in social welfare.3. It is notorious that the editor, printer and publisher of the Bartaman Patrika published a news item on 24th of August, 1987, in the third column at page 3 of it about the infliction of torture by the complainant armed with a large number of persons on a Congress supporter who was constrained to leave the place of abode. The news impugned, according to the complainant, were but s...
Amiya Kanti Bhadra and ors. Vs. Bishnupada Sur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT363(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. This rule is directed against the order No. 106 dated 29.6.1991, passed by the Id. Munsiff, 4th Court, Sealdah, in Misc. Case No. 161 of 1984.The main thrust of the application preferred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was that, that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 snapped of not only the right title interest of the decree holderopposite parties but also the possession with respect to the disputed property. The title to the property never developed on the decree holderopposite parties.2. Rejection of the application under Section 47 by the learned court below has pushed them to revision for the desired objective.3. In the background of the rejection of the claim of the judgmentdebtors, I shall now set out the factual premises of the case in which the instant litigation was launched.4. The plaintiff-decree holder Jagadish Sur, since deceased, came by the disputed property of which one Subarnalata Dutta was the ostensible owner. T...
Hindustan Lever Ltd. and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR772(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J. 1. The short question involved in this writ application is whether the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was justified in not disposing of the petitioners' statement under Form No. 37-I which had been submitted by the petitioners under Section 269UC of the Act.2. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner No. 1 being desirous of transferring its industrial undertaking at Jagatdal, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas, to Lipton India Limited as a going concern entered into an agreement with Lipton India Ltd. on November 8, 1991. That agreement records that petitioner No. 1 would transfer the undertaking to Lipton subject to obtaining approval from the authorities concerned including the Reserve Bank of India under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the Government of West Bengal under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The agreement envisages the transfer of the undertaking as a g...
Estate of Mohan Lal Bhatter Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: [1993]203ITR656(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the following question of law has been referred to this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition made by the Income-tax Officer on account of the estimated income on diverted funds ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that in the periods relevant to the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the assessee-Hindu undivided family permitted its three coparceners to use an aggregate sum of Rs. 90,000 for earning income. The Assessing Officer, after rejecting the assessee's claim that no interest was received by the assessee-Hindu undivided family on the above interest-free debts, estimated the sum of Rs. 13,500 as income on 'diverted funds' on the basis of past records and added the same to the income of the assessee. The addition was confirmed on appeal by the Commissioner of In...
B.B. Ojha Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1993
Reported in: (1993)1CALLT401(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. This rule is issued for quashing the proceedings in Case No. 14 of 1977, pending disposal before the 2nd Special Court, Calcutta in connection with the order No. 140 dated 26.3.1990 was passed.2. A few facts giving rise to the petition may be stated: One Mr. B.B. Ojha while working as a Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, Ballygunj Branch, in between May 1972 and December 1973 was a party to the conspiracy with some constituents of the Banks to commit the offence of cheating the Central Bank of India, Ballygunj Branch, punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2) and 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused entered appearance on 28.11.77 after the court took cognizance on 3.10.77 and issued process. The learned trial court fixed 9.3.78 as the date for evidence. In between the date of appearance of the accused i.e. 28.11.77, and 9.9.88, the prosecution only succeeded in examining 19 witnesses. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›