Kolkata Court March 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.
State (C.B.i.) Vs. Klichine Aleksandre and Seven ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT61(HC)
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.1. The revisional application arises out of an application under Section 407(1)(c) Cr.P.C. for transferring Case No. G.R. 1542 of 1995 from the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Purulia to the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The petitioner is the C. B. I. Their case in short is that Jhalda P. S. Case No. 152 of 1995 under Section 121/121A/122/123 I.P.C. and under Section 25/27 Arms Act was started on 18.12.95 on the basis of a suo moto F. I. R. by O. C. of Jhalda Police Station in connection with dropping of huge quantity of sophisticated arms and ammunitions from the aircraft in the night of 17/18.12.95. In consequent of Notification dated 27. 12.95 of the State of West Bengal and Notification of Central Government dated 28.12.95, the C.B.I, took over the invention of the said P.S.Case and a Criminal case was registered in the office of the C.B.I, in Calcutta accordingly.2. The said aircraft dropping the arms was made to land at Sahara Airpo...
Smt. Manju Mohanka and ors. Vs. Smt. Renuka Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT166(HC)
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.1. The Revisional Application arise out of an order dated 16.7.93 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Alipore In complaint Case No. C-1345 of 1987 under Sections 500 and 500/120B I.P.C.2. The case of the petitioners in short is that petitioner No. 1 is a tenant under the husband of O.P. No. 1 in respect of a portion of premises No. 390/2, Block-'G', New Alipore. She used to pay rent regularly but the husband of O.P. No. 1 refused to accept the same from the month of November, 1985. Thereafter, she started to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller. O.P. No. 1 and her husband began creating disturbances in order to forcefully evict the petitioners No. 1 from the said premises. Petitioner No. 1 in order to protect her interest had to start a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. being M.P. Case No. 1325 of 1985. She also filed a Civil Suit being T.S. No. 522 of 1995. She got orders in her favour in both the proceedings, though the same are pend...
Gajendra Kumar Banthia Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR632(Cal)
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release Jitendra Kumar Banthia, the father of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'), who is said to have been detained in civil prison by respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the relevant rules contained in the Second Schedule appended thereto.2. The detenu has been carrying on the business of jute and distributorship in cinematographic films. Allegedly because of losses suffered by the detenu, he could not pay his income-tax dues to the extent of a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs and odd. It is not disputed that the detenu who was being assessed under the provisions of the said Act, even did not file his income-tax returns after 1986 allegedly on the ground that he did not have taxable income. On February 23, the detenu was arrested and on that date itself he was sent to Alipore Ce...
Bank of India Staff Union and ors. Vs. Bank of India, Eastern Zone and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT454(HC),[1996(1996)FLR1727a],1996LabIC1242,(1996)IILLJ1219Cal
Dipak Prakas Kundu, J. 1. In this writ petition the writ petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: '(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to act in accordance with section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as the order passed by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta-II; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to act in accordance with provisions laid down in the Shastri Award and natural justice; (c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw, cancel, or rescind the impugned and purported orders of transfer forthwith. (d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari do issue requiring the Respondents to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court all records and proceedings relating to the subject matter in issue to that conscionable justice may be administered by quashing and/ or ...
Sujit Banerjee Vs. Smt. Anita Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT417(HC),I(1999)DMC383
S. Narayan, J.1. This appeal by the husband-appellant has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.1990 passed by the 6th Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 12 of 1986, whereby his prayer for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty as also of desertion was refused.2. The husband-appellant being the next door neighbour of the respondent fell in love with her and accordingly, they were married according to Hindu rites and customs in the year 1972 with the consent of parents of both the sides. After the marriage, the respondent shifted to her matrimonial home and some time later a son was born from the wedlock in the year 1973. The appellant happens to be an employee of a Theatre and the respondent is a house-wife. The son, namely, Debabrata, who is now aged about 21 years, always lived with his mother i.e. the respondent.3. The appellant has come up with a divorce petition m...
Sujit Banerjee Vs. Anita Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: II(1997)DMC48
Siddheswar Narayan, J.1. This appeal by the husband-appellant has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.1990 passed by the 6th Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 12 of 1986, whereby his prayer for a decree of divorce under Section 13(l)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty as also of desertion was refused.2. The husband-appellant being the next door neighbour of the respondent fell in love with her and, accordingly, they were married according to Hindu rites and customs in the year, 1972 with the consent of parents of both the sides. After the marriage, the respondent shifted to her matrimonial home and some time later a son was born from the wedlock in the year 1973. The appellant happens to be an employee of a Theatre and the respondent is a housewife. The son, namely, Debabrata, who is now aged about 21 years, always lived with his mother i.e., the respondent.3. The appellant has come up with a divorce...
Gajendra Kumar Banthia Vs. Union of IndiA.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Cal)150
JUDGEMENTSATYABRATA SINHA, J. :This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to release Jitendra Kumar Banthia, the father of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu'), who is said to have been detained in civil prison by respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under S. 222 of the IT Act, 1961, read with the relevant rules contained in the Second Schedule appended thereto.2. The detenu has been carrying on the business of jute and distributorship in cinematographic films. Allegedly because of losses suffered by the detenu, he could not pay his income-tax dues to the extent of a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs and odd. It is not disputed that the detenu who was being assessed under the provision of the said Act, even did not file his income tax returns after 1986 allegedly on the ground that he did not have taxable income. On 23rd February, the detenu was arrested and on that date itself he was sent to Alipore Centra...
Smt. Kalpana Khatwani Vs. Wealth Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD602(Kol.)
1. In this appeal by the assessee, a non-resident, we are concerned with the valuation of the assessee's half share in a flat at No. 2, 8th floor, Le-Papeyol Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mount Marry Road, Bandra (West), Bombay - 50. The flat was purchased on 8th Aug., 1990, by the assessee and her husband Mahesh K. Khatwani, who held the other half share in the flat for a price of Rs. 56 lakhs. In the return for the asst. yr. 1991-92, for the valuation dt. 31st March, 1991, the assessee returned the value of her share in the flat at Rs. 63,000 on the basis of a valuation report showing the value of the entire flat, at Rs. 1.26 lakhs. From the copy of the sale-deed filed by the assessee the WTO found that the cost of the flat was Rs. 56 lakhs and the assessee's share therein came to Rs. 28 lakhs. He further observed that the assessee did not reside in the flat since it was purchased as she was a non-resident. He accordingly adopted the value of the assessee's half share in the fl...
Madhusudan Hazra Vs. Amal Hazra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal258
ORDER1. The instant revisional application is directed against two orders, namely, order No. 207, dated 18-11-1992 and order No. 210, dated 5-12-1992 passed in Title Suit No. 101 of 1978 of the 3rd Court of Assistant District Judge, Howrah. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to this revisional application may shortly be stated as follows : 3. The suit was one for partition. In course of hearing of the suit the second witness of the plaintiff, viz., P.W. 2 was examined on 2-11-1992. At that stage the plaintiff prayed for adjournment for adducing further evidence and the learned Judge allowed that prayer and fixed 18-31-1992 for further evidence. On 11-11-1992 the plaintiff filed a petition praying for summoning four witnesses, including two Government officials, namely, the Executive Engineer of Howrah, Irrigation Department and the Compensation Officer, Howrah for bringing into evidence certain documents, relating to some acquisition of properties forming part of the subject-matter...
Bata India Ltd. Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas101(Cal),1998(60)ECC278
Ruma Pal, J. 1. The question involved in this appeal which has been preferred under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefits of Notification No. FERA 6/74-RB, dated January 1, 1974 (see [1974] 44 Comp Cas (St.) 212), issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The notification in question had been issued by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of powers under Section 9(1)(d) of the Act. 2. Section 9(1)(d) paraphrased, provides for an absolute embargo on any person resident in India from making any payment to any person consequent upon any order or on behalf of any person resident outside India. This embargo may be lifted by any general or special exemption by the Reserve Bank of India. Pursuant to this power the exemption notification in question was issued. The exemption notification provides : 'In pursuance of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973), the Reserve...