Kolkata Court January 1995 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.
Prodyut Kumar Baidya Vs. Chaya Rani Baidya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC69
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J. 1. By this revision, the husband-petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd November, 1974 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Basirhat, 24-Parganas (North) in connection with Case No. M-128/87.2. The short back-ground of the case is that in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the husband-petitioner herein cited the Sub-Postmaster, Katihar Post Office as one of his witnesses. Summons was duly served upon the said Sub-Postmaster, Katihar Post Office and also on the Head of the Office. Both of them received the summons. In spite of receipt of summons, the Sub-Postmaster, Katihar Post Office did not appear before the Court.3. The learned Magistrate on a view that the case is a quasi-civil in nature, held that it is the duty of the petitioner or the party, who cited the presence of his witness, to produce him before the Court and on such finding, he refused to take further action in this matter and closed the evidence of the opposite party. This...
Prodyut Kumar Baidya Vs. Smt. Chaya Rani Baidya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3155
ORDERN.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. By this revision, the husband petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd November, 1974 passed by the Ld. S. D. J. M. Basirhat, 24-Parganas (North) in connection with Case No. M-128/87.2. The short background of the case is that in a proceeding Under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. the husband petitioner herein cited the Sub-Postmaster, Katihar Post Office as one of his witnesses. Summons was duly served upon the said Sub-Postmaster, Katihar Post Office and also on the head of the Office. Both of them received the summons. In spite of receipt of summons, the Sub-Postmaster, Katihar Post Office did not appear before the Court. The Ld. Magistrate on a view that the case is a quasi-civil in nature, held that it is the duty of the petitioner or the party, who cited the presence of his witness to produce him before the Court and on such finding, he refused to take further action in this matter and closed the evidence of the opposite party. This order is the sub...
General Industrial Society Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)53ITD264(Kol.)
1. The first issue in this appeal by,the assessee is against the disallowance of the amalgamation expenses of Rs. 41,700 as capital expenditure. This issue is decided against the assessee following with respect the judgments of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 817 and of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bengal and Assam Investors Ltd. v. CIT [1983] 142 ITR 156.2. The only other issue is whether the CIT (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to assess the receipt of Rs. 10 lakh on transfer of letter of intent for manufacture of white cement to tax as business income. This issue arises this way. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of cotton and manmade fabrics, jute goods, carpet backing cloth, steel fabrication, paper and board, etc. On 5-11-1981, an application was made by the assessee to the Ministry of Industry, Govt. of India for the grant of an Industrial Licence under the Industri...
Gour Mohan Chowdhury and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-01-1995
Reported in: (1995)1CALLT251(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. By this revision the accused petitioners have challenged the proceeding in connection with Howrah R.P.F. (O.E.) Post Case No. 1 (6) 93 dated 15.6.93 under Section 3(a) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, being Case No. S.L. 84/93 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Howrah.2. The brief background of the case is that the petitioners are the railway employees and at all material times posted at Carshed (Stores Section) Eastern Railway. The petitioner No. 1 is a senior electrical foreman, petitioner No. 2 a store-keeper in the carshed and petitioners Nos. 3 to 8 are railway employees and they are attached to the Carshed (Stores Section) and authorised to use stores and/or railway materials. On 15th June, 1993 at about 7-30 hours one railway lorry bearing No. WBI 7990(loaded with railway materials) arrived at the main gate of the carshed and in that lorry three persons and the driver were found. When challeng...
Prodyut Kumar Baidya Vs. Smt. Chaya Rani Baidya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-01-1995
Reported in: (1995)1CALLT335(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. By this revision, the husband-petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd November, 1974 passed by the Ld. S.D.J.M. Basirhat, 24-Parganas (north) in connection with Case No. M-128/87.2. The short background of the case is that in a proceeding Under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the husband-petitioner herein cited the Sub-Postmaster, Kati-har Post Office as one of his witnesses. Summons was duly served upon the said Sub-Postmaster, Katihar Post Office and also on the head of the Office. Both of them received the summons. In spite of receipt of summons, the Sub-Postmaster, Katihar Post Office did not appear before the court. The Learned Magistrate on a view that the case is a quasi-civil in nature, held that it is the duty of the petitioner or the party, who cited the presence of his witnesses to produce him before the court and on such finding, he refused to take further action in this matter and closed the evidence of the opposite party. This order ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›