Kolkata Court June 1997 Judgments
N. C. E. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)65ITD214(Kol.)
1 to 4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 5. Grounds numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6 relate to grievance of the assessee that the assessment is barred by limitation under section 153(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the CIT (Appeals) was wrong in giving a finding that the assessment order was passed within the time prescribed under the statute. In order to appreciate the facts more clearly we reproduce the grounds hereunder : "3. That the CIT (Appeals)-VI should have held that the assessment order is barred by limitation inasmuch as per the provisions of section 153(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer has to pass the order within one year from the date of filing of the Revised Return; 4. That the learned CIT (Appeals)-VI failed to appreciate that the Revised Return having been filed by the appellant on 27-3-1989 was not a valid revised return in view of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (decision) in the case of Vimalchand v. CIT [1985] 155 ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Minati Sen Alias Smt. D.P. Sen Vs. Kalipada Ganguly and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-27-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal386
1. This appeal is against a judgment of affirmance in a suit for eviction. The respondent, as a plaintiff, instituted the suit against the predecessor in interest of the appellants for eviction from the premises as fully described in the schedule of the plaint on the grounds of bona fide requirement, subletting and violation of Sections 108(m)(o)(p) of the Transfer or Property Act.2. So far as the ground of bona fide requirement is concerned, it appears that during the pendency of this appeal, an application for taking into consideration of subsequent events has been filed at the instance of the appellant to which affidavit in opposition and affidavit in reply have also been filed by the parlies. When some argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the parlies on the question of bona fide requirement, an affidavit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent from which it appears that the plaintiff/respondent docs not press ground of bona fide requirement. In view of the fact that an af...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Utpala Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: II(1998)ACC197,(1997)2CALLT457(HC)
Siddhaswar Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 2 being M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd., the insurer of a public vehicle who feels aggrieved of the Award dated August 20, 1988 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident claim Tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 30 of 1983, whereby there was a direction upon it (the appellant) to pay a sum of Rs. 40.000/- as compensation for the loss of life of one, Kashinath Banerjee, along with interest @ 6 1/2 % from the date of filing of the claim till its realisation. The claimants were the widow and a minor son of the deceased Kashinath Banerjee.2. A claim petition being one under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 (Old Act) was preferred by or on behalf of the widow and a minor son of the deceased, who had lost his life in an accident taken place on 31.10.82 when he was travelling in a public passenger bus bearing No. WBU 67 and was thrown out of the vehicle due to heavy jerk as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Utpala Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ810
S. Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant No. 2 being the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of a public vehicle who feels aggrieved of the award dated 20.8.88 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 30 of 1983, whereby there was a direction upon it (the appellant) to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 as compensation for the loss of life of one Kashinath Banerjee, along with interest at the rate of 61/2 per cent from the date of filing of the claim till its realisation. The claimants were the widow and a minor son of the deceased Kashinath Banerjee.2. A claim petition being one under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act) was preferred by or on behalf of the widow and a minor son of the deceased, who had lost his life in an accident that took place on 31.10.1982 when he was travelling in a public passenger bus bearing No. WBU 67 and was thrown out of the vehicle due to heavy jerk as a result of rash and negligent driving of the ve...
Tag this Judgment!United Bank of India Vs. Golam Hossian Halder and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-25-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal359,(1997)2CALLT236(HC)
ORDER1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order No. 13 and Order No.17 respectively dated 7-1-97 and 18-2-97 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No. 189 of 1995. So far as the first order being Order No. 13 is concerned it appears that defendant No. 2 figuring in the proceeding was impleaded in the capacity of a guarantor of the borrower and he being the son of defendant No. 2 cannot but be recorded as one of the heirs or legal successors of the deceased. The said defendant No. 1 is found on record in proceeding. It appears from the record mentioned in the impugned order that the same shows that the learned Lawyer for the respondent No. 1 informed the Tribunal about the death of said respondent No. 2 on 3-7-96. The said respondent No. 2 died on 24-1-96 and thereafter the applicant Bank was directed to have steps for substitution in respect of the deceased respondent No. 2. Some caustic remarks ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamal Kumar Das Vs. Sabyasachi Bhattacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-1997
Reported in: II(1997)DMC447
Basudev Panigrahi, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.2. This revision is directed against the order dated 28th February, 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore arising out of a Matrimonial Suit No. 52/96 awarding maintenance to the opposite party/wife at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month within 15th of the following month. It has been also directed that the petitioner shall pay all arrears within 30th June, 1997. The petitioner who is the husband of the opposite party filed the present matrimonial suit for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955which has been registered as Matrimonial Suit 610/94 and the same has been subsequently renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 52/96. The opposite party/wife following her appearance in the Court submitted an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for temporary alimony on the allegations that the petitioner has been earni...
Tag this Judgment!E.C. Bose and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Victor Oil Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT420(HC)
ORDER1. On the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts, the petitioning creditor has applied for winding up of the company. In support of its case, the petitioning creditor relies on deemed inability of the company to pay its debts.2. The statutory notice issued in this case, was met by an answer to the effect that the company is forwarding the same to its solicitor with its file of papers to reply the same, which reply did not come into existence.3. The statutory presumption of inability is rebuttable. We will, therefore, have to see whether such presumption has been rebutted in the affidavit filed by the company. In the matter of finding out the same, it is not necessary that we must satisfy to the hilt that the presumption has been squarely rebutted; all that we are required to look at is to find out whether the company has been able to make out a possible defence to the monetary claim of the petitioning creditor. In doing so, we have only to see whether an issue of fact ...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Manna Vs. Smt. Shantilata Panchal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT1(HC)
D.B. Dutta. J. 1. Perused the affidavit of service filled on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the opposite parlies were duly served with copy of the application as directed by order dated 6.12.91 but despite such service the opposite parties have not entered any appearance. None also appears to day on behalf of the opposite parties on call.2. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. This is an application under sections 397/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the averments made in the instant application, the opposite party No. 1 filed on 24.9.91 an application against the present petitioner under sections 144 (2) and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court of the Executive Magistrate at Uluberia. The petitioner's further case is that on 11.10.91 the learned Magistrate passed an order drawing up a proceeding under section 107 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be asked to execute a bond of Rs.1000/- with sure...
Tag this Judgment!Mustakim HossaIn Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT28(HC)
R. Bhattachatyya. J.1. The petitioner appellant Mustakim has come up against an order dated 13.6.97 passed by the learned trial Judge whenthe writ application suffered a dismissal on the ground that no bar has been encompassed by the West Bengal Panchayat Act to hold the meeting for removal and adoption of a resolution within six months, by the reason of failure to hold the meeting dated 19.12.96 for not been legally convened. 2. In the background of the above, It will be unnecessary to give an account of the entire factual exposure of the case save necessary. The Dadpur Gram Panchayat is consisted of 25 members of which the petitioner appellant was the captain of the said Gram Panchayat, namely the Pradhan. However, for the prolonged absence in the meeting of two members in the Gram Panchayat. 11 bent upon cancellation of the membership. 3. The proposal for the removal of the Pradhan, therefore, became a consequential act as the above members flew into rage. The warring groups fell ou...
Tag this Judgment!Terai Overseas Ltd. Vs. O.S. Draw Back Deptt.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(96)ELT250(Cal)
ORDERVinod Kumar Gupta, J.1. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner's claim for receiving drawback under the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, despite pending for a long time, has not been disposed of by the respondents with the result that the petitioner has been suffering undue hardship on account of non-action on the part of the respondents.2. Mr. Samaddar, learned Advocate for the respondents, submits that it is a fact that the petitioner's claim has been pending with the respondents.3. If the petitioner's claim for receiving drawback has been pending with the respondents, there is no valid reason as to why the petitioner is deprived of his claim, if he is entitled to the same. For this reason, I, therefore, dispose of this petition by directing the respondents to process the petitioner's claim for receiving drawbacks under 1995 Rules, in accordance with law, and on the merits of the case and to pass a consequential orders without any delay ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »