Kolkata Court January 1996 Judgments
Bharat Hari Singhania (Huf) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD189(Kol.)
1. The only point in this appeal by the assessee us whether the departmental authorities were right in refusing the deduction of Rs. 1,68,399/-in respect of the capital loss stated to have been incurred by the assessee in regard to the shares held by it in Aluminum Corporation of India Ltd. (ACIL for short) 2. The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family. In this appeal we are concerned with the assessment year 1987-88 for which the previous year ended on 29-3-1987. In the return the assessee claimed deduction in respect of the aforesaid capital loss. The Income-tax Officer while completing the assessment under section 143 (3) observed that the assessee held 15390 equity shares in ACIL for Rs. 1,68,399 which figure was written off in the assessee's books and was claimed as capital loss. He was of the view that since there was no transfer in terms of section 45 read with section 2 (47) of the Act, the claim cannot be allowed. He referred to the judgments of the Madras High Court in the cas...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Sharmistha Gangopadhyay Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal239
ORDERS. B. SINHA, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 8-1-1993 passed by U. C. Banerjee, J. whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioner-appellant dismissed in limine. The fact of the matter lies m a very narrow compass.2. The appellant appeared in Part II Examination of B.A. Hons. in the year 1988. According to the appellant, she did fairly well in the examination, but did not obtain marks accordingto her expectation. Inparagiaph 12 of the writ application, it was stated that she reasonably apprehends and/or has reason to believe that her answer scripts have not been properly looked into and examined. The appellant applied for review so far as answer scripts of 5th and 8th papers on 18-9-89 in the prescribed form. Upon scrutiny no change in her results was made. Howevr, later on thepetitioner was awarded 32 in place of 36 marks in one of the papers. The petitioner-appellant further drew the attention of the Hon'ble Minister. The matter was a...
Tag this Judgment!Pratiksha Bhatia and Others Vs. University of Calcuttta and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal237,100CWN542
ORDER1. The petitioners allegation in this case is that they passed Class 10+ 2 Senior School Certificate Examination through 'Patrachar' in the year 1994 under the Central Board of Secondary Education, and thereafter all of them got themselves admitted to the First Year B.Com. Course, Heramba Chandra College, 23; 49, Gariahat Road, Calcutta-29 sometime in September 1994. The petitioners were also sent up for the B.Com. Final Examination from the said college to the University of Calcutta. The examination will be held in March/April, 1996, but the University did not grant the petitioners registration certificates, and admit cards for sitting in that examination on the ground that 'Patrachar' is not recognised by the University of Calcutta as equivalent to Senior School Certificate Examination in view of the resolution of the Syndicate dated 30th November, 1993. There is no doubt that the question of equivalence is to be decided by the University at the first instance and the Court ordi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mrs. Mridula Purakastha Vs. Kalika Singh and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal234
ORDER1. Mr. Ganesh Shrivastava, learned Advocate, enters appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 and files his Vakalatnama in Court today. Let it be kept on record.2. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. N. Mukherjee appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Sabyasachi Sen and the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1, Mr. Ganesh Shrivastava. Considered the materials on record.3. By this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a doctor, challenged the Order No. 15, dated 14th December, 1995, passed by the President, and a Member of the District Redressal Forum, North 24-Parganas, Barasat, in D.F.C. Case No. 90 of 1994, whereby the learned Forum allowed the petition of the petitioner in that proceeding for restoration by restoring the proceeding to its original file and number after the matter was contested by the opposite party therein.4. The fact, briefly stated, is that the opposite party No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Saraogi Industrial Corporation and Another Vs. Steel Authority of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal325
ORDER1. The facts inter alia involved in the instant writ petition are that Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) is the owner of the Durgapur Steel Plant, (DSP) which is one of its units.2. SAIL appointed Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd. (MSTC) as its agent. In 1990 MSTC appointed Subhadra Trading Company as its sub-agent to dig, recover, process and load iron scraps from the slag dumps of DSP at Durgapur. These facts have been alleged in paragraphs 4,7 and 10 of the writ petition (at pages 6 to 9 of the paper book) and the facts are admitted (at para 8 of the A/ O of MSTC at page 332 of the paper book).3. On 29th December, 1991 Subhadra Trading Company filed a writ application against SAIL praying for appropriate directions for reimbursement on account of escalation of labour wages.4. On 23rd April, 1993 in the said writ application filed by Subhadra Trading Company, an order was passed by me for sale of the processed materials lying at the slag dumps of DSP, by public auction.5. On...
Tag this Judgment!Greaves Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas914(Cal)
Asok Kumar Chakravarty, J.1. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether any person other than a director of a company can be said to be 'occupier' of a factory within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner-company has a factory at Plot Nos. B-9 and B-10 of Falta Industrial Growth Centre, Sector III, Falta, Diamond Harbour and is known as Power Transmission Unit 2, hereinafter referred to as 'the said factory'. By a resolution of the board of directors of the petitioner-company on May 27, 1993, Mr. A. B. Ghosh was nominated as the occupier of the said factory having ultimate control over the affairs of the said factory. The petitioner submitted two applications for renewal of licence in respect of the said factory for the years 1993 and 1994, respectively, to which respondent No. 2 sent a reply intimating that 'the forms for 1993 and 1994 have not been signed by the occupier, i.e., by ,an...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Moitrali Mukherjee Vs. Manik Chand Jojuri and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal226
1. This is a suit for recovery of vacant possession of premises No. 146, Upper Chitpur Road, now renumbered and renamed as No. 468, Rabindra Sarahi, Calcutta fully described in the plaint schedule at Annexure-A, as also for mEsne profits at the rate of Rs. 150/- per diem which is tentatively assessed at Rs. 18,000/- for the period from 2nd July, 1987 up to 29th October, 1987 and alternatively for enquiry into compensation payable for use and occupation of the premises and a decree therefor. Interim interest and interest on judgment have also been prayed for in the plaint.2. Plaintiffs case is that the leasehold right of the said premises belonged to plaintiffs mother Smt. Indu Prabha Roy Chowdhury, since deceased, by virtue of a deed of lease which was renewed from time to time including by the one dated 12th May, 1958, executed by the then Chief Manager of the Dacca Nawab Court of Ward Estate for a period of 15 years on terms and conditions as fully described in the said deed. Plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Behari Das Vs. Smt. Soma Roy and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal231
ORDER1. Heard the submission of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Bhattaeharjee appearing with learned Advocate Mr. P. Sinha and the learned Advocate for the opposite parties Mr. S. S, Mukherjee appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Debasis Das. Mr. Mukherjee at this stage undertakes to file his power in course of this day. Let it be ' recorded. Considered the materials on record.2. By the instant application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, O. P. No. 2 before the State Commission has come up before this Court challenging the orderdated 8-6-95 (not filed) whereby the said State Commission directed issuance of notice or summons upon the O. Ps. in that proceeding wherein O. P. No. 2 figured as one of the opposite parties. The relevant necessary facts on which this revisional application arises is that Smt. Soma Roy, widow of late Tarit Kumar Roy, as a complainant filed an application for compensation for deficiency of medical service under S. 17 of the Consumer Protec...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Das and ors. Vs. Smt. Snehalata Mathuli and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT277(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. This revision is directed against Order No. 111 dated 11.6.91 passed by the Learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapur in J. Misc. Case No. 6/91 rejecting the application filed by revision petitioners under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. Defendants 1(ka), 1(kha) and 1(ga), in T.S. No. 11/88 filed this revision. The mother of the petitioners 4 to 7 Late Saibalini Debi purchased a portion of Plot No. 440 from Khandibala Dasi by a Registered sale deed dated 27.7.61. Since the date of purchase, she had been in possession of the suit land and constructed boundary wall on all sides. After the death of Saibalini Debi the petitioners 4 to 22 inherited the said properties and possessed the same. The defendant Bidangabala Das purchased eastern portion of the suit Plot No. 440 measuring 43 decimals under a registered sale deed dated 11.1.58 and she gifted her purchased property to her husband Kailash Das by a registered gifted deed dated 29.7.66. Kaila...
Tag this Judgment!A. Bhaskaran Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT385(HC)
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.1. Four revisional applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been heard together. The prayers are the same and facts and question of law involved are exactly the same. As such they have been dealt with analogously and shall be governed by the present judgment. They arise out of 4(four) complaints which have been investigated by the C.B.I, being proceeding No. RC/12/EOW/86, RC/13/EOW/86, RC/14/EOW/86 and RC/15/EOW/86 all dt. 17.12.86 under section 5(1)(d) and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 120B/420/468/471 IPC. 2. The complaints were made by the Deputy General Manager (Advances) of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. a private Bank controlled by the family of late A.M.M.S. Ganesha Nadar. The petitioner was an employee of the said Bank from 1983 to the middle part of 1985 when he resigned from the services following difference with higher officials and consequent harassment. It is the case of petitioner that in the body of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »