Kolkata Court June 1994 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.
Lt. Col. K.B. Sethi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT207(HC)
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. 1. This writ petition relates to grievance of the petitioner concerning his promotion in service. The petitioner joined the Indian Army in 1963 as a Regular Commissioned Officer. The petitioner is now holding the rank of Lt. Col. and he could not thereafter qualify for promotion to the rank of Col. Even at the time of promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. he could qualify only on second consideration and as such lost the seniority of one year vis-a-vis his original batch-mates and thus became an officer of 1964 batch in place of 1963 batch for the purpose of future promotion. An officer of the rank of the petitioner is given three considerations for selection and promotion to the next higher rank as follows :(a) Fresh consideration,(b) First review, and(c) Final review.2. If the officer is not found fit for promotion even after the final review, he is treated as finally superseded and his case is not considered any further except as a special review case. In...
Cycle Coporation of India Ltd. Vs. T.i. Releigh Industries Pvt. Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Cal73
ORDERPrabir Kumar Makumdar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th September, 1990, passed by a learned Judge of this Court on an application taken out by the appellant under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for removing 12 Trade Marks from the Register of Trade Marks and for cancellation of those Marks. The learned Judge by the said judgment and order dismissed the said application. 2. The respondents T. I. Raleigh Industries Limited and T. I. Raleigh Limited, the respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively, are the registered proprietors of these 12 Trade Marks. The Trade Marks relate to Bicycles and their components and accessories. 3. The facts of the case as set out in the judgment under appeal are shortly this. Prior to 25th April, 1977, the name of T. I. Raleigh Industries Limited (the respondent No. 1) was Raleigh Limited and the name of the respondent No. 1A T. I. Raleigh Limited was Raleigh Cycle Company Limited. They are both companies incorpora...
Bankim Chandra Das Vs. Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT279(HC)
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This writ petition is directed against a departmental enquiry proceeding conducted against the petitioner and the show cause notice issued to the petitioner for removal from service. The petitioner was appointed as a driver under the Calcutta Port Trust sometime in the year 1964. On 29th November, 1979 while the petitioner was functioning as H.T. Driver in a particular C.P.T. Lorry he was apprehended by the C.I.S.F. Personnel at about 2 pm. at 27, K.P.D. on the charge of taking one coil of stainless steel strip, imported cargo of M.V. Jalaplaka in the said lorry. A criminal case was also started against the petitioner. The petitioner was also placed under 'deemed suspension' with effect from 29-11-79. By the order dated the 3rd April, 1980 the petitioner was however discharged from bail bond in that case by the learned S.D.J.M., Ali-pore, vide Annexure-A to the writ petition. It is obvious that the discharge was not on merit and it was only a discharge...
S. P. Jaiswal Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1994
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Cal)338
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :The questions, at the instance of the assessee, arising out of ITA No. 1298/ (Cal) of 1983 filed by the assessee are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the hotel building owned by the company and used for the purposes of carrying on hotel business was not a plant for the purpose of calculation of depreciation ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the company was not entitled to depreciation and extra-shift depreciation on building applicable in the case of plant ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the company was not an industrial company mainly engaged in the manufacture of goods ?(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal w...
Sri. Adhir Kumar Das Vs. Smt. Juthika Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Cal129
1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19-2-1985 passed by the Ld. Assistant District Judge, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No. 10/83 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 30-9-1982 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court Berhampore, Distirct Murshidabad in O.S. No. 258/66. As it appears from the record the suit has a chequered career. Initially, the suit brought by the plaintiff respondent against the tenant defendant appellant was decreed in the trial Court on the grounds of nuisance, reasonable requirement and default by the judgment dated 10-12-1968. Against the said judgment and decree the First Appeal was preferred by the defendant appellant being T.A. 34/69 which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court as per judgment dated 24-6-1972. The Ld. Subordinate Judge held that the ground of nuisance or annoyance was not established. But the findings of the trial Court that plaintiff respondent reasonably re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›