Kolkata Court July 1994 Judgments
Multi Rise Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Cal)391,[1995]211ITR102(Cal)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The issue involved in this writ application is whether the provisions of Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to as 'the Act'), or Chapter XX-C of the said Act would apply to the transaction entered into between the petitioner and the owners of the premises No. 16, Raja Santosh Road, Calcutta (referred to as 'the premises').2. On September 1, 1986, and September 15, 1986, two several agreements were entered into by Surajit Ganguli and Ratna Ganguli, respectively, in respect of their undivided half share in the premises with the petitioner. Under each of the agreements, the owners agreed to sell and transfer their undivided share or interest in the premises to the petitioner or its nominee or nominees free from all encumbrances and charges at and for an amount of Rs. 61 lakhs each. The agreements record that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs had been paid by the petitioner to each of the owners as and by way of earnest money and in part payment of the agreed price.3. Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Joydel Kumar Biswas Vs. Maduri Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3342,I(1996)DMC12
N.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. The present revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.1993 passed in Misc. Case No. 535 (IV)/91 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Krishnanagar, 4th Court, Nadia upon an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. enhancing the maintenance allowance of the wife-opposite party from Rs. 100/- per month to Rs. 400/-.2. The short background of the case is that the petitioner-opposite party No. 1 is the married wife of the petitioner herein and out of the wedlock a daughter was born. The petitioner failed and neglected to maintain the wife-opposite party and the daughter and for that the wife-opposite party No. 1 herein filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar, Nadia and a case being No. 133(IV) of 1978 was registered in that Court and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 12.6.1980 allowed the application of the wife and directed the husband to pay Rs. 100/- per...
Tag this Judgment!Malhotra Marketing (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: (1994)51ITD234(Kol.)
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee, against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 1986-87 and following grounds have been raised therein: 1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law in rejecting the assessee-company's contention that, the Business Loss of Rs. 1,21,700 as determined by the Income-tax Officer, in the assessment order dated 28-2-1989 pursuant to the belated return of income filed by the assessee-company is not liable to be carried forward and set off against the Business Income for the subsequent assessment year. 2. (a) That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in Law in not following the Circular No. 469, dated 23-9-1986 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes which clearly lays down in paragraph No. 9.5 that the belated Return of Income filed for the assessment year 1986-87 within the prescribed period under Section 139(3), read with Sections 80 and 157 will not be denied the benefit of carry-forward of Business Loss for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Others Vs. Ganesh Chandra Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Cal1,99CWN336
ORDERN.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. By thisappeal the respondents in the writ petition challenged the order/judgment dated 30th March, 1994 passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen in Matter No. 1036 of 1994 allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner directing the respondents to issue permission forthwith to !he petitioner to fill up the low land in the premises being No. 171/C/l Picnic Garden Road Calcutta-7000 39 preferably within six weeks from the date of the communication of the order. The writ petitioner in his writ petition prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents and each one of them to forthwith issue permission to thepetitioner to fill up the ditches in thepremises being premises No. 171/C/1, Picnic Garden Road, Calcutta-700 039. A writ of certiorari was also prayed along with the prayer for injunction directing the respondents to forthwith grant permission to the petitioner to fill up the ditches pertaining to the premises referred to above.2. In...
Tag this Judgment!Darjeeling Dooars Plantation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Regional P.F. Commissio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR573],(1995)ILLJ939Cal
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order dated May 2, 1988 passed in Matter No. 2206 of 1987 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Babulal Jain, J. discharging the rule and vacating the interim orders.2. In their writ petition before the trial Judge the writ petitioner alleged that the petitioner No. 1 purchased Bundapani Tea Estate from Ramjhore Tea Estate and all the right, title and interest of the said Tea Estate Co. Ltd. vested in petitioner No. 1 with effect from January 1, 1975. Since then the petitioner No. 1 has been running the said Tea Estate. The petitioner No. 1 received a notice dated March 18, 1986 from respondent No. 1, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, directing the petitioner to show cause as to why damages are not to be levied for default in payment of the dues to the provident fund for the month of September, 1968 to November 1968, March 1970 to January 1973 and May 1973 to February 1974. The said noti...
Tag this Judgment!Naru Gopal Dutta Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1994
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT211(HC)
Basudev Panigrahi, J.1. In this revision the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Rule to quash the proceeding pending before the Special Court (Sadar) Midnapore in D.E.B.G.R. Case No. 4 of 1987 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as Act).2. Facts leading to the prosecution against the petitioner are stated in brief :-A police party raided the place of business and also the residential house on 15.1.87 between 13.00 to 17.00 hours of the principal accused Bishnupada Dey of Kumarhati, Keshiary, District-Midnapore. The accused Bisnupada Dey is said to have defaulted in producing books of accounts before the raiding party. They seized 14 bags of Atap Rice from a room and 15 bags boiled rice in another room. It is further alleged that 16 bags of common rice was seized from eastern side kept in a tileshed room of the courtyard. Inspector of police Sri R. N. Roy, Enforcement Branch, West Bengal who was heading the raiding party also seized 7 bags of s...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Roy Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3489
ORDERN.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. In Criminal Revision No. 1971 the accused petitioner Sri Dilip Kumar Roy prayed for quashing of the proceeding in GR Case No. 134 of 1985 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Purulia arising out of Santaldih P.S. Case No. 8 dated 27th January, 1985 under Sections 420/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code.2. In Criminal Case No. 2139 the said petitioner prayed for setting aside order dated 12-8-88 passed in the said case as aforementioned by the S.D.J.M., Purulia.3. This Court by its order dated 4-12-1992 in Criminal Revision No. 2139 directed that the Criminal Revision Case No. 2139 of 1991 to be heard along with Criminal Case No. 1971 of 1991. Accordingly, both the cases are taken up together and disposed of by this judgment.4. In both the cases the facts are the same and it involves the same question of law.5. The accused petitioner was the General Superintendent and Chief Engineer of Santaldih Thermal Power Station during the relevant...
Tag this Judgment!Ekkari Ghosh Alias Jitendra Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1994
Reported in: (1994)2CALLT117(HC),98CWN999
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. The petitioner having failed to secure anticipatory bail on 21.2.1994, has again knocked on the door of the Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.2. The pivot of the claim is founded chiefly on twin grounds plus another ground of lessor momentum viz. omission to argue on inordinate delay, pendency of the civil litigation between the parties and the inaccessibility of the petitioner to the case record depriving him of excavating materials from the FIR of which he was not in possession thereof at the time of hearing the application by the earlier Division Bench.3. The petitioner was constrained to renew his prayer for anticipatory bail for the emergence of new grounds.4. The claim has been resisted by the State on the count that a second application is not maintainable and the court is to fold its hand for the relief.5. To answer the respective claims, it will be much better to take the bull by the horns in the background of the sections v...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›