Kolkata Court May 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.
Vishan Roy Vs. Bayer (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1993
Reported in: 98CWN1042,[1995(70)FLR1031],(1995)IILLJ612Cal
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated December 12, 1990 passed by the learned trial Judge in C.O. No. 103 (w) of 1989 dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant writ petitioner against the order dated June 17, 1988 passed by Shri R.K. Ghattak, Judge, 8th Industrial Tribunal rejecting the application of the workman for interim relief as provided under Section 15(2)(b) of the West Bengal Amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. In this appeal the question arose as to the scope and ambit of the power of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as amended by the West Bengal Industrial Dispute (2nd Amendment) Act, 1980. For deciding the issue raised in this appeal it would be necessary for us to refer to the provision of Section 15(2)(b) of the said Act which is as follows:'15(2) Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Labour Court or Tribunal, it shall(a) after filing of sta...
B.S. Jaireth Vs. Sri S.P. Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Cal68
ORDER1. This application has been made by B.S. Jaireth under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointment of an Arbitrator. There was a Memorandum of understanding as between the petitioner and the respondent dated 12th November, 1988 which contained a clause as follows:'6. Any dispute arising out of above understanding or due to non-implementation of above understanding by either Sri Sinha or Shri Jaireth will be referred for arbitration.'2. Thereafter disputes and differences had arisen between the parties and the petitioner by letter dated 22nd September, 1990 appointed an Arbitrator. The respondent, S.P. Sinha, however, did not send his concurrence to the daid appointment. Thereafter, the said Arbitrator proceeded with the reference (hereinafter referred to as 'the previous reference) and made an Award. The said Award was set aside by an unreported judgment and order passed by Justice Ruma Pal dated 23rd May, 1992, made in matter No. 3432 of 1991 (S.P. Sinha v. B.S. Jai...
Sri Dasarathi Chakroborty and ors. Vs. Sri Somenath Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1993
Reported in: (1993)2CALLT64(HC),97CWN1161
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. One Brojobala Chakraborty, claiming to be purchaser of 1/4th share from one of the four sons of the absolute owner of the suit property, instituted Title Suit No. 97 of 1958 in the 7th Court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Alipore for partition impleading therein two sons of the sole owner and the auction purchaser of the share of one of the four sons. The present petitioners 1 to 7 and petitioner No. 8 before this Court are the heirs of the original plaintiff and the auction purchaser mentioned above. The said suit was ultimately decreed in preliminary form, inter alia, declaring the right of defendant No. 2 to purchase (pre-empt) the share of the plaintiff and the then defendant No. 3. In compliance with the preliminary decree the defendant No. 2 filed an application for pre-emption, which was registered as Misc. case No. 59 of 1963. Thereafter, from time to time, different Commissioners were appointed for determination of valuation of the resp...
Director of Income-tax (Exemption) Vs. Shree Sitaram Public Charitable ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1993
Reported in: [1994]207ITR1087(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 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 law in holding that interest under Section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not exigible in this case ?'2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shree Sitaram Public Charitable Trust, is a public charitable trust. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the assessee holding that the assessee held shares in Messrs. K. C. Thapar and Brothers and Hindusthan General Electric Corporation. Besides shares of the aforesaid two companies, the assessee also advanced loan to Messrs. K. C. Thapar and Bros. Ltd. The Assessing Officer held that the aforesaid investments were in violation of Section 13(1)(d)/11(5) of the Act as the assessee continued the investment after November 30,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Apsara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR662(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 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 law in holding that the transfer fee of Rs. 40,870 was not taxable income of the assessee ?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a co-operative housing society. During the year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee received transfer fee amounting to Rs. 45,870 for change of hands of flats. Following the treatment given to similar receipts in earlier assessments, the Assessing Officer held that the receipts were taxable as income. The administrative expenditure of the assessee was estimated at Rs. 5,000. The Assessing Officer, therefore, included a sum of Rs. 40,870 as the assessee's income under the head 'Other sources'.3. The assessee went in appeal. The Commissioner of Income-ta...
Daga Nylomet Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1993
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT270(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The dispute in this case is whether the machinery imported by the petitioners is a textile machine. The petitioners say that the machine imported is a textile winding machine and is covered by Heading No. 84.45 sub-heading 8445.40 to the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (referred to as the Act). The respondents say that the machine is classifiable under sub-heading 8479.89 of the First Schedule to the Act.The relevant Tariff Headings are as follows :'84.45 Machines for preparing textile fibres; spinning, doubling or twisting machines and other machinery for producing textile yarns; textile reeling or winding (including weft winding) machines and machines for preparing textile yarns for use on the machines of Heading No. 84.46 or 84.47.Machines for preparing textile fibres :8445.40 Textile winding (including weft-winding) or reeling 80% machines.''85.79 Machines and mechanical appliances having individualfunctions, not specified or included elsewhere in this...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›