Kolkata Court September 1997 Judgments
In Re: Ananta Sadar Vs. Panchanan Bhattacharyya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT308(HC)
R. Bhattarcharyya, J.1. The petitioner is sought to have explored remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as the Impugned order dated 13.5.97 passed by the Additional District Judge, Allpore, in C.R. No. 283 of 1992 is founded upon slippery foundation.2. The court rejected the admissibility of a solenama based on a petition, but subsequently made an exhibit which attributes to an uproaring in law. It constitutes a confusion worse confounded. The court, according to the learned counsel, was placed between the two horns for the decision earlier rendered which has harboured confusion and the order passed is devoid of law. The contribution of the learned counsel as succinctly made and understood by me is that the certified copy of a solenama of an earlier suit filed on behalf of the opposite party No.1, in Title Suit No.82 of 1992 could not be admitted Into evidence and marked as an exhibit once rejected.3. I have gone through the order Impugned meticulously and I do no...
Tag this Judgment!Dulal Chandra Adak and anr. Vs. Gunadhar Patra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Cal150
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is preferred impugning two judgments and decrees passed by the learned appellate Court below namely the learned Additional District Judge, Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 121 of 1984 and the learned trial Judge, viz., the learned Assistant District Judge 3rd Court at Midnapore in Title Suit No. 115 of 1976. Both the learned Court below held in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs amongst other principally for partition and administration of the properties left behind by one Nandalal Adak, since deceased. In the said suit another relief has been claimed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the deed of gift allegedly executed by Nandlal Adak, since deceased in favour of the appellants herein is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the same are forged and fabricated document. The bone of contention in the present appeal as well as the suit is whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kanailal Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT227(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. I have been addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in connection with the application initiated under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution 1950 to set at naught the impugned order No. 17 dated 5.9.97 directing the Tribunal to hear out the appeal being M.A.A No. 210 of 1994 and pending decision in the appeal the operation of the impugned order be stayed.2. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears, he has challenged the constitutionality of Section 189 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 as it offends the basic structure of the Constitution.3. In challenging the impugned order, the petitioner is emphatic that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980 lays down the provisions for appeal, an appeal alone against an order of assessment for valuation being made by the executive and the decision will attain finality snapping of the valuable right accrues to an assessee. The deposit of the consolidate...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Cal)275
ORDERS. C. TIWARI, AM.The first ground of appeal is general and no specific submission made in respect thereof during the hearing given by us.2. The second ground of appeal is directed against the assessment of a sum of Rs. 6,72,820 as representing revenue income. The facts of the case in this respect are discussed at length in para 6 of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A). In brief, as a result of scheme framed by the Govt. of India on recommendation of an Export Committee headed by S.V. Sampat, the assesseecompany received incentive in the form of higher free sale quota and excise duty rebate. The assessee quantified this incentive and credited to capital reserve account and claimed that this amount being capital receipt in the hands of the assessee was not liable to tax. The AO held that this particular subsidy was in the nature of revenue receipt and relied on this behalf on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of V.S.S.V Meenakshi Achi & Anr. vs . CIT : [1966]60ITR253(SC...
Tag this Judgment!Dabur India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)66ITD260(Kol.)
ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL--Ex parte order without giving opportunity of being heard Where ex-parte order was passed by the Tribunal after serving the notice of hearing on person not authorised by the assessee, order of the Tribunal had to be set aside as opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee.The assessee's case is entirely covered by the proviso to rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as the assessee has proved by adducing documentary evidence that notice of hearing was not received either by it or by any authorised person on behalf of the assessee and, therefore, there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the assessee when the appeal was called on for hearing. The provisions under sub-section (1) of section 254 in its true spirit had not been complied with in passing the ex parte order and, therefore, the power to set aside its ex parte order in the interest of justice is inherent in the Tribunal and could be traced to sub-section (1) of section 254...
Tag this Judgment!Dabur India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Cal)513
ORDERR. Acharya, A.M. This miscellaneous application is filed by the assessee against the order of the Tribunal dated 10-9-1996 in ITA No. 2950(Cal)1992 for the assessment year 1986-87.2. Before this miscellaneous application, the assessee had filed one miscellaneous application on 5-11-1996 which was rejected by the Tribunal vide order in MA No. 67(Cal)96 dated 10-1-1997 on the ground of receipt of notice under the signature of authorised person who does not appear to be Durban and on the basis of availability of seal of Dabur India Ltd. put on the acknowledgment receipt. The assessee also filed another miscellaneous application which was received by the Registry on 26-2-1997 vide assessees letter dated 24-2-1997 and was rejected by the Tribunal at the stage of admission itself without hearing the assessee on the following grounds :'As there is no sufficient cause and no mistake apparent from record, miscellaneous application is rejected as Tribunal cannot review its order CIT v. Goku...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Renu Aich Vs. Smt . Lakshmi Debnath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT21(HC),1998(1)CHN180
B. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated 2.4.94 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1030 of 1992 thereby rejecting the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The fact giving rise to the instant appeal is as follows:--One Upendra Nath Alch was the owner of the suit property. The said Upendra Nath Atch died on November 1, 1944 leaving behind him two sons, namely Judgal Klshore and Krishna Chandra and his widow Sarojlnl Alch. Sarojlnl Alch died intestate in the year 1953. Krishna Chandra died bachelor on June 12, 1983 and Jugal Klshore died intestate on December 26, 1970 leaving the appellant and the respondent No. 3 as his sole heirs and legal representatives. On July 30,1947 Jugal and Sarojinl mortgaged their undivided 2/3rd share in the suit property to one Bejoy Samaddar, husband of the respondent No. 2. Bejoy transferred his ...
Tag this Judgment!Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers Association and ors. Vs. the Commissione ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Cal121
ORDER1. Two matters were heard together. One is an application filed by Mohan Fire Works and Chandan Golcha carrying on the business under the name and style of Chandan Mal Golcha for addition of party respondents in the disposed of Writ Application in C.O. No. 4303(W) of 1995 with a prayer for stay of the operation of the Memo No. 1039 dated 28th October, 1996 as well as Police Notification dated 2nd November, 1996 and to permit or allow manufacture, sell, dealing and/or trading and storing of fire works without any restriction and also to permit or allow bursting of fire works/caters of less than 90 dB at 5 kilo metre distance from the site of bursting without any restriction whatsoever. The other one is a writ application filed by Burrabazar Fire Works Dealers' Association against the imposition of ban on certain items of noisy fire works on the ground that the same violates the fundamental rights of the fire works Dealers to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1...
Tag this Judgment!Jaya Sen Vs. Sujit Kr. Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Cal288
Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount directed to be paid by the defendant (Purchaser) to the plaintiff (Vendor) by way of consideration for execution of a deed of sale or not is the question involved in this application. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellant claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs :--'(a) A decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises and delivery of khas possession of the suit premises and delivery of khas possession, thereof to the plaintiff after evicting the defends ants therefrom; (b) Alternatively a decree for specific performance of the contract directing the defendant No. 1 to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 2,34,000/- to the plaintiff and get a deed of conveyance executed and registered by the plaintiff at her own costs; (c) A decree for damages tentatively @ Rs. 50,000/- for wrongful use and occupation from 19-2-88 till the filing of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. S.A. Neyazi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2281
ORDERDibyendu Bhusan Dutta, J.1. The present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the proceedings in Case No. C. R. 235 of 1996 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur.2. The above case arose out of a written complaint lodged by an Inspector of Legal Metrology, Durgapur subdivision with the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur.3. The complainant's case may be stated as follows. In course of, a surprise visit of LPG bottling plant of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the petitioner No. 1 Company at Durgapur on 22-3-9.6 along with Assistant Controller of Legal Metrology, Burdwan and Inspector of Legal Metrology, Dusgapur, the petitioner No. 3 who happened to be the acting plant manager of that bottling plant was asked to produce filled LPG cylinders for checking of their net content. The checking was undertaken in presence of the petitioner No. 3 and the complainant verified and checked the cylinders ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »