Kolkata Court July 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.
Abuzar M HakimuddIn and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT138(HC)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. The facts leading to this writ petition inter alia are that the writ petitioner firm participated in various tenders floated by Eastern Railway and quoted most reasonable prices for various types of stores and materials. Various tenders of the petitioners were accepted by the Railway and accordingly Railway placed diverse purchase orders, from time to time, on the writ petitioner firm at contracted rates.2. Pursuant to and in terms of the purchase orders placed by Eastern Railway the petitioner sold and delivered huge stores and materials, on diverse dates at the contracted price. The Respondent duly received, inspected, approved and accepted the said stores and materials without raising any disputes or differences whatsoever. The Bills raised and submitted by the petitioner were duly received and accepted by the respondents. It will be evident therefore that the petitioner had charged only the contracted rates and that the bills were duly being received by the ...
Mahesh Kumar Jindal and ors. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3861
Amal Kumar Chatterjee, J.1. The short and only point for determination in these two revisional applications heard together is whether the Judge of a Special Court constituted under the Essential Commodities Act (later referred to as the Act) can direct further investigation by the police when he finds himself unable to agree with the recommendations made in a police report submitted before him. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the applications will stand rejected: otherwise it will be allowed and the impugned orders will be struck down. It is not necessary to reproduce the facts.2. Mr. Ray, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the application has argued that Section 12AA of the Act is a complete code of procedure to be followed by a Special Court subject only to the provisions of Section 12AC of the Act. This Section runs as follows:-'Section 12AC. Application of Code to proceedings before a Special Court.- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provis...
Ashoke Marketing Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR941(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1976-77 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in not following the decision of the Supreme Court pointed before them to hold that the electronic business of the company was an indivisible business and not liable to be bifurcated and that all the expenditure under the Alpha Electro Division was allowable deductions ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the electronic business of the company is divisible into two divisions and that only expenditure in respect of one division is allowable ?'2. In its revised return of total income filed for the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee-company claimed deduction for an expenditure of ...
Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: (1993)47ITD638(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the CIT (A) for the assessment year 1986-87. The only ground raised is as under : For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing capital loss of Rs. 36.43,221 arising out of sale of shares of M/s. Grahmas Trading Co. (I) Ltd. and M/s. Shalimar Works Ltd. (in liquidation) by the assessees.2. The appeal arises this way. During the year, the assessee sold a flat in Bombay and there was a capital gain of Rs. 35,70,661. On 24-12-1985 the assessee sold two lakh equity shares of M/s. Grahmas Trading Co. (I) Ltd. and 10,500 equity shares of M/s. Shalimar Works Ltd. The cost price of these shares (Rs. 10 face value) was Rs. 24,05,332 and Rs. 13,40,514. These shares were held as investments in the assessee's balance-sheet. These shares have been held by the assessee for quite some time. They were sold for Rs. 1 lakh in respect of the shares in M/s. Grahmas Trading Co. (I) Ltd. and for Rs. 2,625 in respect of the shares in M/s...
Executive Engineer, Electricity Dept., Rural Division Vs. Shri Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)IILLJ964Cal
Susanta Chatterjee, J. 1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the applicant challenges the Award dated May 31, 1991 of the Industrial Tribunal, Port Blair pursuant to the reference dated April 25, 1990 under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since made by the Lt. Governor (Administrator). Andaman and Nicobar Islands for adjudication of the dispute;'Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Department, Rural Division, Rangat in retrenching 273 workmen with effect from April 1, 1989 is legal and justified, and if not, to what relief, are the concerned workmen entitled?'2. The Presiding Officer considered three issues:(1) Is the reference maintainable? (2) Were the workmen retrenched as stated by the first party? If so, was the retrenchment with effect from April 1, 1989 legal and justified? (3) To what relief, if' any, are the first party workmen entitled? 3. Assigning the reasons the Presiding Office...
Poddar Dewki Limited Vs. Mr. G. Ghosal, Inspector of Police, Cbi and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ456
ORDERSusanta Chatterji, J.1. This matter has been assigned to this Bench. Parties have completed their affidavits. Matter is taken up for final disposal. Having heard Mr. Bholanath Sen with Mr. Bhaskar Sen appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents, it appears that the writ petitioner Poddar Dewki Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, has filed the present writ petition, praying, inter alia;(a) A writ of and/or an order and/or a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith draw, cancel, recall and rescind the impugned Case No. RC41/90 dated 24th July, 1991 under Sections. 120B, 420, I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to forbear from giving any effect thereto in any manner whatsoever by themselves or by their servants or agents;(b) A writ of and/or an order and/or a direction in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and se...
Lalchand Chhaganmull Vs. Bengal Warehouse and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT337(HC),98CWN488
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. The appellant by this appeal challenged order No. 23 dated 2-2-93 passed by the learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Money Suit No. 551 of 1992 dismissing the appellant's petition dated 15-12-92 under Order 40 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on contest with cost.2. In a brief profile the fact of the case is that the appellant entered into an oral contract with the respondent herein for supply of 10 tonnes of Maya Arthodox Blended Tea (which term will be referred to hereinafter as the 'Said Tea') at a price of Rs. 52/- per Kg. (all inclusive).3. It has been further alleged that during the time of entering into the parole agreement it was known to the defendant (the present appellant) that the plaintiff (the present respondent) purchased the said tea for reselling and/or supplying the same to the Tea Trading Corporation of India Limited who in turn required the same for export to Kazakistan.4. It was fur...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sukh Ram Singh Alias S.R. Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1993
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT228(HC)
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 3rd April, 1991 passed by the learned trial Judge. By the said judgment and order the learned trial Judge was pleased to direct the appellant to start afresh from the state of filing of the report of enquiry in accordance with the law after following certain procedures which were directed to be complied with in terms of the order of the learned trial Judge. The fact of the case in short is that the charge sheet as issued against the writ petitioner/opposite parties in the year 1976 and on the basis of the said charge sheet an enquiry was held and ultimately he was removed from service by an order dated 5th November, 1976. The writ application was moved before the learned trial Judge on 19th April, 1990. Admittedly, there was a delay of about 14 years. In order to explain the delay it was pointed out that the appellate order was passed on 16th February, 1990 and as such the question of delay should be...
Union of India Vs. M/S. JaIn and Associates and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Cal106
ORDER1. This application has been made on behalf of the Union of India praying that the award passed by the arbitrator dated 20th July, 1992 along with the corrigendum dated 4th August, 1992 being Annexure B to the petition be set aside and for other consequential reliefs and orders,2. By an order dated 25th March, 1988, this Court appointed Mr. A. C. Moitra, Senior Advocate, as the sole arbitrator in this case. M/s. Jain & Associates had made a claim on account of various items making a total claim of Rs. 25,52,777/-. The respondent, Union of India, made various counterclaims on different accounts making a total counter-claim of Rs. 24,59,404/-. The said arbitrator made an award in favour of the Jain Associates on account of their claims to the extent of Rs. 8,30,463.00. He also allowed the counter-claim of the Union of India to the extent of Rs. 72,670/-. The net award amount after deducting the counter-claims as allowed from the claims as allowed by the saidarbitrator was Rs. 7,57,8...
The Screen Corpn. (1938) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Biswanath Deb and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1993
Reported in: (1994)1CALLT427(HC)
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17th May, 1990 passed in Suit No. 514 of 1984 by the learned trial Judge P.K. Majumdar, J. whereby the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the premises No. 76/3, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta.2. That fact of this case in short is that one Kumar Dhirendra Krishna Deb Sehadur was the absolute owner of premises No. 76/3, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta-700 006 on which stands a cinema hall and the area of the land is about I Bigha 8 Cottahs. By registered deed of lease the said Kumar Dhirendra Krishna Deb Sahadur let out the premises No. 76/3, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta in favour of Prakash Chandra Nan and Sudhir Chandra Nan for a period of 21 years commencing from 2nd March, 1963 at a monthly lease rental of 2,800/-. Under the said lease the lessor was given right to sub-let the premises in question. On 28th February, 1968 the said Dhirendra Krishna Deb Bahadur died leaving behind...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »