Kolkata Court August 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.
Ram Kr. Tewari Vs. the Asstt. General Manager (Ccr), Bank of Baroda an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1996
Reported in: (1998)3CALLT253(HC)
D.P. Kundu, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of suspension dated 20.04.95 [Annexure 'E' of the writ petition), the charge-sheet dated 12.06.95 (Annexure-'F' of the writ petition) and the corrigendum of the charge-sheet dated 10.07.95 (Annexure-'G' of the writ petition).2. The petitioner, inter alia, prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents and/or their Managers, officers, subordinates to (a) forthwith rescind, recall forbear and withdraw and/or not to give any effect or furthereffect to the charge-sheet dated 12.06.1995 (Annexure-'F') read together with corrigendum dated 10.07.1995 (Annexure-'G') and the order of suspension dated 20.04.1995 (Annexure-'E') and (b) treat the petitioner on duty during the period of suspension and accordingly pay him his full wages and allowances and other privileges for which he would have been entitled as if he came on daily duties and also to pay salaries for 65 days to the petitioner while he was in judicial custody ...
Nav Bharat Vanijya Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax. (Cit V. Juggil ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1996
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Cal)400
VISHESHWAR NATH KHARE, C.J. :These two references under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, one at the instance of Nav Bharat Vanijya Limited, the assessee, being IT Ref. No. 187 of 1992, and the other at the instance of the CIT, Central-I, Calcutta, being IT Ref. No. 44 of 1993, raise a common question of law and as such we propose to decide both the references together.2. In Reference No. 187 of 1992, the assessment year involved is the asst. yr. 1980-81. For the said assessment year, the assessee claims Rs. 3,87,464 as deduction under S. 80K of the IT Act being 100 per cent. of the dividend received from Straw Products Ltd. The claim has been made by the assessee on the basis of the provisional certificate granted by the AO under S. 197(3) dt. 14th July, 1978, for the year ending 31st December, 1977. Since the assessment in the case of Straw Products Ltd. was completed, the AO ignored the provisional certificate granted by the AO and proceeded to assess the assessee in the light of the a...
United Credit Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Cal)220
ORDERR. V. EASWAR, J. M. :In these appeals by the assessee the only question is whether the departmental authorities were justified in making additions of Rs. 44,90,434 and Rs. 25,42,968 on account of interest accrued to the assessee.2. The appeals arise this way. The assessee is a public limited company. It was registered in the year 1970 to carry on the business of merchant-cum-development banking in all its aspects. The company could not, however, undertake development banking for want of resources and had to confine its activities to merchant banking with industrial consultancy. In the year 1980, a special resolution was passed in the annual general metering of the company to change the main object to include financial consultancy, computerised data processing, housing finance, hire - purchase and equipment leasing, export and import finance, etc. In pursuance of the new object the company utilised its funds more towards housing finance besides also utilising them in the field of e...
Uma Shankar Prosad Gupta Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1996
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT318(HC)
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J. 1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr PC praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being special court case No.6 of 1995 under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act hereinafter referred to as the Act pending before the court of session at Raiganj. The case of the petitioner is that he was arrested on 20.3.94 by one S.I. of Excise on the allegation of being in unlawful possession of 500 gms. of opium alleged to be kept hidden in a bamboo container embedded beneath the wooden cot of petitioner's bed room in the line hotel. The prosecution report dated 20.3.94 was filed before the S.D.J.M., Islampur. The petitioner was produced in the court of S.D.J.M. on 21.3.94 and his prayer for bail was rejected by the magistrate and subsequently by the sessions Judge. Later he was enlarged on bail by an order of this court. As per the copy of the seizure list and the prosecution report, search was effected in the bed room of the petitio...
Union Builders Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT197(HC)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. 1. The instant application has been made on behalf of the Union of India (S.E. Rly.) on 27th January, 1981 for, inter alia, setting aside the purported decree dated 21st November. 1981 confirming the Award dated September 11, 1980. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that no notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was served upon the petitioner. Decree was passed ex-parte on 21st November, 1980 confirming the ex-parte Award. 3. It has further been contended that until receipt of the decree-holder's letter dated 26th December, 1980 on 27th December, 1989, the petitioner was aware of the said purported exparte Award or the exparte decree passed thereon. The application was made on 23rd January, 1981 for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 21st November, 1980 confirming the said ex-parte Award dated the 11th September, 1980. 4. The only question that arises for consideration in the instant case is whether Notice under Section 14(2) of t...
Rajendra Kumar Sethia Vs. Wealth-tax Officrer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1996
Reported in: (1982)2ITD394(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed on the ground that the AAC erred in holding that jewellery is not covered by the exemption provided in Section 5(1) (xii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') for works of art.2. The assessee claimed that the jewellery belonging to him were exempted under clause (xii) inasmuch as they were works of art. The WTO negatived this claim of the assessee.3. On appeal to the AAC, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that from the provisions of clauses (viii) and (xiii) of Section 5(1), it was clear that items of jewellery were not included in the list of articles exempted under clause (xii). It was urged that in the absence of any specific provision prohibiting the exemption of jewellery from a charge to wealth-tax under clause (xii), the assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of jewellery which were definitely works of art.It was submitted that every item of jewellery could be considered to be work of art in view of the fact that pro...
Ved Kumari Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(94)ELT73(Cal)
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. In course of preventive checks, officers of Dum Dum Central Excise Division under Calcutta Collectorate on 19-2-1992 detected lorry No. DIL-5036 on B.T. Road, Calcutta alongwith 46 wooden crates on it. The occupants of the lorry on being asked by the officer could not produce any document to the officer. As the wooden crates bore the markings of its import from foreign country, officer brought the lorry and 46 crates with its occupants to the Custom House and formally handed over the truck along with its occupants and goods on board to Assistant Controller (P.G.) for necessary enquiry into the case on 19-2-1992.2. An enquiry was conducted and the occupants of the lorry namely the driver, khalasi and local guide were examined and their statements were recorded.3. The goods found in 46 crates as per inventory were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief that the same were imported illegally and fraudulantly in India from a foreign count...
Arun Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT181(HC)
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J. 1. The writ petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary and a Director of Panihati Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitioner No. 2 is the Panihati Co-operative Bank Ltd. This writ petition has been filed by the aforesaid two petitioners challenging the notice of the Special General Meeting of the said Co-operative Bank issued by the respondent No. 4, the Chairman of the said Bank. The respondent No. 4 raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition by the Co-operative Bank in the absence of any authorisation in this behalf by the Board of Directors in favour of the petitioner No. 1. Such question need not be gone into for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition because even if the writ petition is held to be not maintainable on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 but then the petitioner No. 1 alone can maintain this writ petition on his behalf. 2. One third delegate members of the aforesaid Co-operative Bank by a written notice addressed to t...
Cliftons Pearson Export and Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)61ITD60(Kol.)
1. This appeal is instituted by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1984-85.2. In ground Nos. 1 & 2 which are reproduced as under, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess the assessee :- (i) That the learned CIT (Appeals) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, erred in holding that the Assessing Officer could lawfully assume jurisdiction to assess the appellant notwithstanding the appellant's objection filed within a period of one month from the date of filing the return. (ii) That the ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to apply his mind and failed to appreciate that the assessment made is a nullity in view of the provisions of section 124 as also the order being in violation thereof.3. In this case, the original assessment was made under section 144 on 13-2-1987 which was set aside by the CIT(A) on 25-11-1987. The present assessment order under appeal is made under section 144/251 in compliance...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Sourendra Nath Shaw and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal80
ORDERGitesh Ranjan Bhattachar-Jee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated the 14th February, 1989 passed by the Judge, 10th Bench City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.813 of 1979, by which the learned trial Court granted a decree in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs for recovery of khaspossession of the suit premises by evicting the appellant-defendant therefrom. The respondents-plaintiff as joint receivers appointed to the estate of a Hindu Deity which included the suit-premises, filed the suit for eviction of the tenant, namely, the appellant-defendant from the suit premises. The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The appellant is a Bank, namely, the United Industrial Bank Limited subsequently substituted by Allahabad Bank. There are two rooms in the suit-premises, namely, room Nos. 15 and 16 on the floor of the premises No.24 of the Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta-1 occupied by the said Bank for office purpose at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »