Kolkata Court June 1996 Judgments

Ranjit Kumar Banerjee Vs. Appropriate Authority of Income-tax Departme ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1997]223ITR664(Cal)

S.K. Tiwari, J.1. This writ application, has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to withdraw the order dated December 29, 1993, passed by the appropriate authority in Income-tax Departmental proceeding No. AA/(Cal)/978/Sept. 1993, the communication dated January 4, 1994, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the one dated January 6, 1994, sent by the executive engineer working under the appropriate authority, Calcutta, and to issue no objection certificate.2. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Matter No. 1192 of 1994, pending on the original side of this court.3. Respondent No. 6, Chengmari Tea Company, is a private limited company. Respondent No. 6, is the petitioner in Matter No. 1192 of 1994. The petitioner, Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, owns premises No. 29A, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises'). The premises comprise an area of 1 bigha, 8 cottahs, 10 chittacks and 75 sq. ft. toget...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Graphite India Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Cal)123,[1996]221ITR420(Cal)

Visheshwar Nath Khare, C.J. 1. By this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal to this court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction on export sales commission paid to Great Lakes Carbon Corporation Ltd., U. S. A., under Section 35B(1)(b)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts of Rs. 34,926 and Rs. 10,000 as well as Rs. 91,568 were allowable notwithstanding the provisions of Section 80VV of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 lakh ? Additional question in R. A. No. 436/(Cal) of 1992 for the ...

Ranjit Kumar Banerjee Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Cal)157

S. K. TIWARI, J. :This writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to withdraw the order dt. 29th Dec., 1993, passed by the Appropriate Authority in IT Departmental proceeding No. AA/(Cal)/978/Sept., 1993, the communication dt. 4th Jan., 1994, issued by the AAC and the one dt. 6th Jan., 1994, sent by the executive engineer working under the Appropriate Authority, Calcutta, and to issue no objection certificate.This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Matter No. 1192 of 1994, pending on the original side of this Court.2. Respondent No. 6, Chengmari Tea Company, is a private limited company. Respondent No. 6, is the petitioner in Matter No. 1192 of 1994. The petitioner, Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, owns premises No. 29A, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises'). The premises comprise an area of 1 bigha, 8 cottahs, 10 chittacks and 75 sq. ft. together with buildings and structures standing thereon. Th...

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sabita Roy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)1CALLT24(HC)

Shree Rang Misra, J. 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal which is time barred by 471 days. When the appeal was presented a Bench of this Court directed the appellant to serve copies of the application upon the opposite parties by registered post with acknowledgment due and thereafter the matter be listed. When the case was listed on 17th of June, 1996 after perusing the application under Section 5 we were not satisfied that the case for condonation of delay is made out. However, the order passed on 17th of June, 1996 was not signed as the learned Counsel for the appellant wanted to address the court in support of Section 5 application. Accordingly, the case was posted today. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length. 3. The reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 are as follows : 'Hundreds of claim cases arising out of Motor Car accidents are filed each year in differe...

Apeejay Private Limited Vs. Raghavachari Narasinhan and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)1CALLT255(HC)

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated the 12th July, 1989 passed by U.C. Banerjee, J. in suit No. 747 of 1988, by which the learned Judge stayed the said suit and all proceedings thereunder till the final disposal of the complaint case No. 1233 of 1988 and 1488 of 1988 including the Park Street Police Station case No. 455 dated, the 27th July, 1988. The plaintiff company (the appellant herein) filed the said suit on the allegation that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (that is, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein) jointly carried on business as share and stock brokers and that, during the period April, 1984 to April 1985 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,98,00,000 to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of acquiring shares in various companies and with specific instructions to do so including 3,51,300 shares of the defendant No. 3 (Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.) of the value of Rs. 1,39,34,513 to be purchased in the name of plaint...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sabita Roy

Court: Kolkata

S.R. Mishra, J.1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal which is time-barred by 471 days. When the appeal was presented a Bench of this Court directed the appellant to serve copies of the application upon the opposite parties by registered post with acknowledgment due and thereafter the matter be listed. When the case was listed on 17.6.1996 after perusing the application under Section 5 we were not satisfied that the case for condonation of delay is made out. However, the order passed on 17.6.1996 was not signed as the learned Counsel for the appellant wanted to address the court in support of Section 5 application. Accordingly, the case was posted for today.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length.3. The reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 are as follow:Hundreds of claim cases arising out of motor car accidents are filed each year in different Tribunals throughout th...

Smt. Kusum Daga Vs. Smt. Niva Rani Biswas and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)1CALLT105(HC)

Arun Kumar Dutta, J. 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13th August, 1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia, in Civil Revision No. 29 of 1990 before him, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein. 2. The facts, as are relevant for the present purpose, may shortly be set out as follows: The opposite-party No. 1 herein Smt. Niva Rani Biswas (hereinafter referred to as Niva Rani) had filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 51 of 1987, before the 3rd Court of Munsif at Krishnagar against the Opposite Party No. 2 herein Amar Chand Adhikary (hereinafter referred to as Amar Chand) as the principal defendant, wherein the Petitioner Kusum Daga (hereinafter referred to as Kusum) had been impleaded as a proforma defendant, praying for a decree for eviction and mesne profits against the said Amar Chand. It is contended by Niva Rani that she and Kusum are co-owners in respect of R.S. Plot...

Hindusthan Forgings Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1997Cal93,(1996)2CALLT399(HC)

ORDER1. This is a revisional application against the orders dated 25-9-1989 and 12-2-1990 filed by the plaintiff in Suit No. 456/88 passed by the 2nd Bench, Small Cause Courts at Calcutta.2. The brief facts set-out in the revisional application are as follows:--The petitioner which is a firm carrying on business of various types of iron materials had supplied to the opposite party-defendants since 1980-81 of M.S. Bolts, Nuts, Washers of various sizes and other items as specified in the Bill. It is, inter alia, stated that as per the agreement the defendant had agreed and paid 90% of the value of the goods leaving only 10% to be payable at time of final checking and re-submission of further bills by the plaintiff. There was an outstanding dues of Rs. 4,509 payable by the defendant-opposite party of the said balance 10% of the bill amount. The plaintiff had submitted several representations and reminders but all such attempts appeared to be abortive. The petitioner had also sent a notice...

The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors. ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2253],(1997)ILLJ82Cal

Kabir, J.1. The respondent No. 1 in this appeal is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and claims to be carrying on business of promoting schemes for savings by small investors. The petitioner No. 2 claims to be a shareholder and also the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company.2. On January 20, 1983 the State Government issued a Notification in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to in short as the 'E.S.I. Act' extending the applicability of the said Act to 'shops' in the areas specified in the Schedule to the notification wherein twenty or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months.3. The said Notification was challenged by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal by way of a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated February 15, 1991 upon holding that the impugned ...

Doli Banerjee Vs. Prabir Banerjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: II(1997)DMC352

S. Narayan, J.1. This appeal by the mother-appellant is directed against an order dated 21.8.1995 passed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat in Matrimonial Case No. 31 of 1994 whereby, the husband-petitioner's prayers for custody of a minor son in his favour was allowed and the mother-respondent was simply permitted to see tine son at the residence of the petitioner. The order was passed in presence of both the parties but after hearing only the learned Lawyer for the husband-petitioner. The mother had filed two separate petitions to defer the hearing on he grounds that fresh copy of the application for custody be made over to her an i also that it was not possible for her to file petition until and unless the passing of an order on a petition filed by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act then pending. Since both these petitions were rejected, no argument could be advanced on behalf of the mother and the pra...