Kolkata Court December 1998 Judgments

Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Deput ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1999]236ITR671(Cal)

SATYABRATA SINHA J.-Interpretation of the provisions of section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, calls for decision in this application.The aforementioned question arises for consideration in the following circumstances :The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. In terms of the provisions of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act as also under the Companies Act these are required to have their accounts duly audited by a chartered accountant. According to the petitioner, during the earlier assessment years various questions as to whether a particular receipt would be a capital receipt or a revenue receipt came up for consideration and the same had been considered and disposed of by the appellate authorities.By an order dated March 20, 1998, the Assessing Officer being the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-13, directed the petitioner to get the accounts audited in respect of points enumerated therein and furnish the report of the said special audit ...

Biplab Kumar Mitra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. Shri Biplab Kumur Mitra, applicant of O.A. No. 188/ 94 filed this MA. under Rule 24 of (he Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for recalling the order dated 13.6.97 passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal dismissing the application, According to the applicant, the grounds for recall of the order as stated in the application are that the applicant's advocate Mr. Prasad argued the ease on 23.4.97, but he could not appear before the Tribunal on 13.6.97 when the judgment of the case was passed by the Tribunal after hearing the learned advocate of the respondent. It is also alleged in the application that the impugned finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the petitioner resigned from the Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and joined another government Enterprise, M/s Andrew Yule & Co.without availing appropriate procedure is miscarriage of justice and thereby he filed this application for review. Mr. Vidyadharan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of th...

Prime Promotors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aroop Kumar Chatterjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1999Cal186

ORDERAltamas Kabir, J. 1. The plaintiff/petitioner entered into an agreement with the defendant/opposite party No. 1 for sale of the property described inthe schedule to the plaint for a sum ofRs. 20,00,000/-, out of which the plaintiff paid asum of Rs. 51,000/- as earnest money. In view ofthe failure of the defendants to complete the sale, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performanceof contract against the defendants, being Title Suit No. 59 of 1992, before the learned Assistant District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, District 24-Parganas (South), and the same was decreed on contest on 31st May, 1994, in the manner following, :-' namely, 'It is ordered and decreed that the suit be and the same is decreed on contest against the defendants. The plaintiff do get a decree for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property in its position, as it stands with the tenants. The plaintiff be directed to deposit or pay to the defendants the balance consideration money of Rs....

Ramesh Narayan Alias Andi Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)1CALLT383(HC),1999(1)CHN148,1999CriLJ3056

A. Lala, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nlcobar Islands, Port Blair on 31st March, 1998 in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1994 giving conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing the accused to life imprisonment. The appeal is preferred by the accused making various grounds including that the order of conviction and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life in the above said sessions case passed by the learned sessions Judge is bad in law and inoperative.2. Although the defence case was otherwise, but Mr. S.K. Mondal, the learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted th'at they are only relying upon the prosecution's case that the offender la punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgment of trial court to that extent is, according to him erroneous.3. In support of his contentions Mr. Mondal has drawn our attention to the observation of the concluding porti...

M.C. Prasannan Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)1CALLT458(HC),1999(1)CHN123,1999CriLJ998

S.K. Sen. J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair on 4th June, 1998 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1993. The charge against the appellant was that the appellant being a Class teacher in the Bengali bustee in Teressa, raped a minor Nicobaree tribal girl, a resident of Teressa Island in the Nicobar District.2. The case of prosecution as appears from the said judgment of the Sessions Judge is that the accused Prasannan was a teacher in the Bengali Bustee in Teressa. The Prosecutrix was a student of that school in Class IV. Accused Prasannan was the class teacher of the Prosecutrix/victim. While the victim used to go to the school, the accused would look her regularly. The victim also used to look the accused regularly. One day the accused told the victim to come to his house at night which was at a distance of about 300 metres from the house of the victim. When the victim went to the house of the accused ...

M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. B. Hemawati and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001ACJ749,(2000)2CALLT449(HC)

S.K. Sen, J. 1. This appeal Is directed against the award passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Port Blair arising out of an application under section 166(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended In 1994, filed by the respondents being the heirs and legal representatives of the victim, directing the appellant, Insurance Co. and the respondent No.3 to pay jointly and severally the compensation of Rs. 2,47.000/-only.2. The facts inter alia involved in this appeal are that on 29.6.1996 at about 14-10 hrs. the victim was travelling on the body of the truck bearing Regn. No. AN O1/A-4501 belonging to and driven by O.P. No. 1 S. Venkatoswar Rao from Phoenix Bay APWD godown to Haddo Wharf via Pelanlpur after unloading the cement bags at the godown. The driver of the truck turned the truck rashly and negligently in increased speed towards the right in order to go to Haddo side at the traffic junction at Delanlpur as a result of which the victim who was sitting on the le...

Sri Sriram Saha ors. Vs. State of West Bengal ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)1CALLT399(HC)

G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondent authorities not to prevent the petitioner from felling down some of the existing trees numbering 14 standing on his ralyati land which has been recorded in the records of right under the classification Bagan (garden). It is the petitioner's case that at no point of time the said land was a forest of any nature and the same has never been converted from an earlier forest. It is the further case of the petitioner that the concerned trees intended to fell down are unproductive mango trees and they are very old trees and have lost their fruit-bearing ability and the petitioner has been incurring heavy financial loss every year and the trees have been affected with parasites and other uncontrollable worms so much so that any further standing of the trees would jeopardise the fruit-bearing ability of the other adjacent trees and they are urgently needed to be uprooted and accordingly, t...

Rekha Mukherjee Vs. Ashis Kumar Das and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)3CALLT112(HC)

The Court1. The second appeal arises out of an appellate decree passed by the District Judge dismissing a suit for eviction filed by the appellant. The suit premises are 77/1. Hazra Road (hereinafter referred to as the premises). The appellant is the owner of the premises. The premises were leased in 1959 to Manik Chandra Das for a period of 15 years.2. After expiry of the lease period the appellant filed a Title Suit being T.S. No. 105 of 1979 against Manik Chandra Das (being the predecessor in interest of the respondent) before the Third Munsif at Alipore for his eviction. Manik Chandra Das filed a written statement in the suit claiming to be a thika tenant in respect of the premises and challenging the 1959 lease deed as being vitiated by misrepresentation. Manik Chandra Das died soon thereafter and his widow, Gouribala together with his two sons ( the present respondents, were substituted in his place and stead.3. After several further proceedings, in May, 1989 the respondent No. 2...

Bhupal Chandra Chanda Vs. Chairman, Panihati Municipality and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1999Cal110

ORDERSatya Brata Sinha, J. 1. In this application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to set aside an order dated 29-11 -96 passed by the Chairman of the respondent municipality, which is in the following terms :'1. The staircase may be allowed up to the floor of 2nd floor and this part may be covered with a roof-slab in continuation of the roof slab of 2nd floor. The staircase above the floor of the 2nd floor, already constructed by you, will have to be dismantled. As the load has been reduced in the staircase there will be no chance of damage in the staircase part. 2. The deviation in the staircase part from the sanctioned plan is minor in nature and it will not materially affect the ventilation. Hence, I allow this minor deviation in exercising my powers to relax the municipal rules in this respect.' 2. This writ petition has a chequered history. The petitioner allegedly constructed his residential ...

Bijay Kumar Agarwal and ors. Vs. Ratan Lal Bagaria and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1999Cal106

ORDER1. This application is made by one company naming thereby M/s. Murphy Food Specialities Private Limited having registered office at 203, M. G. Road, Calcutta-700007 (earlier No. 227, A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta-700020), under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, praying inter alia, leave to the petitioner company to intervene in the present proceedings and to add party respondent there in along with prayer for recalling and/or setting aside the order dated 26th March. 1998, in G.A. No. 3109 of 1997 and inter alia various other reliefs in the nature of giving certain directions to the Receiver/Special Officer and injunction in connection therewith.Although various reliefs were sought for in the application but from the advancement of the argument it appears that the application is basically made for recalling and setting aside of the order passed by this Court on 26th March. 1998 in G.A. No. 3109 of 1997 at the instance of allcontesting parties.2. One of such contesting parties ...