Kolkata Court February 1996 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.
Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Sandhya Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT337(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. By this revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. the defendant has come up against the appellate judgment dated 28.6.94 passed in Misc. Appeal No.374/93 by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas(South) whereby the learned Judge dismissed the Misc. Appeal on contest and affirmed the order of the learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, being order No. 123 dated 12.2.93 passed in Title Suit No.69/88. By the said order the learned Assistant District Judge rejected the petition of the defendant holding that the suit has been over valued for the purpose of avoiding the lowest court competent to try the suit. In that petition the defendant also ascerted that the valuation that has been given by the plaintiff in the suit is appropriate and reasonable. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties in that suit, the learned Assistant District Judge, by the impugned order No. 123 dated 12.2.93, rejected the prayer and...
Smt. Gouri Manna Vs. Sri Swapan Manna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT23(HC)
Shree Rang Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas in Matrimonial Suit No. 28 of 1987, whereby he decreed the suit. Shri Swapan Manna (Hushand) plaintiff respondent in the appeal filed a suit for a decree of divorce disolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and the custody of the children on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Undisputedly, the marriage between the parties were solemnized according to Hindu Marriage Rites and Customs on 23rd of January, 1976 and out of the said marriage three children, one son and two daughters were born out of the said wedlock. According to husband from the very beginning he was received very coldly and subsequently he came to know that the defendant was in the habit of seeing picture in quick succession and she was very fond of outings and she could not enjoy things during one week's stay at husband's place. Detailed allegatio...
Kumar Sankar Chakraborty Vs. Juthika Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC2
Surya Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This petition has been filed against the order passed by 6th Judicial Magistrate. Alipore in Misc. Case No. 518 of 1988.2. The opposite party is the wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was solemnised in the year 1982 and a daughter Sudeshna was born out of this wedlock. The opposite party alleged that the petitioner ill-treated her and neglected to maintain her ever-since 1984. The petitioner is posted at Rourkella and the climate of Rourkella does not suit the opposite party. She, therefore claims maintenance.3. The petitioner denied that he neglected and ill-treated the opposite party. He has stated that the petitioner has left her matrimonial home on her own without any rhyme or reason.4. The learned Magistrate found that the petitioner had failed to maintain his wife. Therefore he awarded Rs. 400/- to the opposite party by way of maintenance. Hence this revisional petition.5. The opposite party has stated in her statement that she became sick in Rourkell...
Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Regional Provide ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ765Cal
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. Although this appeal was preferred against a judgment and order dated August 4, 1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court refusing to pass an interim order, in view of the direction given by a Division Bench of this Court a Paper Book was prepared and the Learned Counsel for both the parties agreed that the entire writ application be heard and disposed of by this Bench and thus we have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and are disposing of the writ application.2. The petitioner, inter alia, in this application has questioned the orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner which are contained in annexures 'E', 'H' & 'N'.3. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The writ petitioner is private limited company. It applied for and was granted exemption in terms of the provision of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (here-in-after referred to as the said 'Act') by reason of a Notification da...
Smt. Manju Rani Ghosh and anr. Vs. Smt. Santi Rani Hazra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT330(HC),100CWN333
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heard the submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Asoke Kumar Sengupta appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Sunirmal Datta. Considered the materials on record. 2. By this revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment-debtors petitioners have challenged the order No. 9 dated 22nd December, 1995, passed by the learned District Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas. The learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah passed a decree in Title Suit No. 568 of 1975 against the judgment-debtor petitioners. The decree was levied to execution by the decree holder, and the same was registered as Title Execution Case No, 87 of 1986 by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah. The execution of the decree was resisted by some of the judgment-debtors and the decree-holder field a petition under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking police help and the same was registered as Misc. Case No. 117 of 19...
Mrs. Uma Basu Vs. Swapan Chatterjee and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal311,100CWN419
ORDER1. Heard the submission of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Saptangshu Basil and the learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Jagjibon Ghosh appearing with the learned Advocate Miss Bhaswati Pal. Considered the materials on record.2. By this revision under S. 115 of the C.P.C. the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, has challenged order dt. 29-11-1995 passed in Title Suit No. 123 of 1993 by the. Assistant District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, 24-Paraganas (South), whereby the learned Assistant District Judge, allowed the petition of the plaintiff made under S. 151 of the C.P.C, without any cost and gave liberty to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs for a period of one year in the fixed deposit account subject to renewal with the development of the suit in any branch of the State Bank of India, situate within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. The fact that has given rise to this order impug...
Shroff Leasing (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)58ITD273(Kol.)
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee-company are against the consolidated order of the CIT (A)-II, dated 20-9-1993. As per section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, certain specified assets of closely held companies are liable to wealth-tax. The Assessing Officer completed the assessments under section 16 (5) of the of W. T. Act wherein the value of the motor cars was brought to tax.2. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority wherein it was contended that the motor cars owned by the assessee were used for leasing out on rental basis and the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in taxing the value of motor cars under the W. T. Act. The First Appellate Authority confirmed the assessment order by holding that the W. T. O.'s action in bringing to tax the value of the motor cars, is fully justified.3. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended before us that by the Finance Act, 1988 proviso to section...
Panchanan Mondal and Others Vs. West Bengal Board of Secondary Educati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal240
ORDERSatyabrata Sinha, J.1. The writ application itself was taken up for hearing along with the appeal with the consent of the parties.2. The writ application was directed against an order dated 25-9-95 as contained in Annexure 'I' to the writ-application whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 9 herein was appointed as an Administrator of the School. It appears that the said communication was made pursuant to the order made by the Presdient of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in exercise of his emergency power conferred upon him under Section 28(2) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, dated 25-9-95 which reads thus:--'I have consiered the reports received from the Headmaster of the school on the affairs of Champahati Nilmonikar Vidyalay, 24-Par-ganas (S) and other papers in the files. It is observed that an administrative chaos has been prevailing in the school following the resignation of three teacher representative/ non-teacher representatives. In the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ballabh Prasad Agarwalla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR354(Cal)
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J. 1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for referring the following questions of law in respect of the assessment year 1986-87, corresponding to the accounting year 1985-86 : '1. Whether, on the facts' and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in recalling the order of the Tribunal for fresh hearing ? 2. Whether, in view of the elaborate discussion in the Tribunal order (paragraph 12) and when no such claim was made before any of the income-tax authorities, the order of the Tribunal in miscellaneous application recalling the earlier order, is legally correct ? 3. Whether, in view of the fact that the Bench which heard the matter giving rise to the miscellaneous application is different from the Bench disposing of the application recalling the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh hearing, the order of the Tribunal is legally correct in terms of Rule 34A(3) of the...
Gobinda Chandra Bhunia Vs. District Employment Exchange Officer and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: 100CWN330,[1996(74)FLR2446],(1997)ILLJ993Cal
G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. Pursuant to my direction dated January 8, 1996 the Employment Officer, Midnapore was personally present before the Court and explained as to why petitioner's name was not sponsored for the post of Assistant Teacher in History in the concerned school although he was initially called by the Employment Officer. It was submitted before me, as recorded on January 8, 1996 that under the Rules of Rotation a candidate's name has to be forwarded only 'once in a year' and as the petitioner's name was sponsored on March 9, 1995 for the post of Krishi Projukti Sahayak to the Principal Agricultural Officer, Midnapore (West), that is why although the petitioner was initially called, ultimately the petitioner's name was not forwarded in connection with the appointment of Assistant Teacher in History in the concerned school in conformity with the Rules of Rotation. It is now submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the qualification required for the post of Kr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »