Kolkata Court March 1998 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.
Union of India and ors. Vs. T. Malleswar Rao and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT121(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 2G-6-1997 whereby a Mandamus has been Issued against the appellants directing them to give the respondents the benefit of regular pay-scale as safalwallas (members of the conservancy stafl) and to absorb them into the permanent service of the appellants within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. A further direction has been issued by the learned single Judge in the Judgment under appeal to the effect that if the establishment, where the respondents would be permanently absorbed as a consequence of the judgment of the learned single Judge is ultimately wound up, the respondents would be absorbed elsewhere in other department under the Union of India with the benefit of continuous service.2. The respondents 1 to 12 before us in this appeal have, admittedly been working for varying periods as safalwallas with the appellants in the Brlchgunj cantonment area whic...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Western Bengal Coal Fields Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Cal)680,[1998]233ITR139(Cal)
1. By this reference application, the following questions have been referred for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing interest on the loan taken from Grindlays Bank ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that coal mines business of the asses-see-company constituted the same business and in that view of the matter in allowing the interest on loan from Grindlays Bank as deduction ?' 2. The assessee was a colliery owner whose right, title and interest in the mines had been acquired after the enactment of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. During the assessment years 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1978-79, the assessee-company incurred liabilities towards expenditure of interest to the Grindlays Bank of Rs. 2,91,980, Rs. 7,71,851 and Rs. 7,71,851, respectively. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that in view of its agreement w...
Budharu Roy and anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: 1998ACJ846
S. Narayan, J.1. Consequent upon the death of the petitioners' son Buiya Roy in a motor accident caused by the maxi taxi No. WGV 2556, a claim of compensation was lodged before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, which was numbered as MAC No. 285 of 1996. Pending final disposal of the claim there was also a petition filed for payment of compensation on the principle of no fault liability that is, under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. While considering the prayer as such the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 7.11.1997 asked the parties to adduce evidence with regard to their contentions in controversy. Suffice it to give extract of the impugned order which is as follows:Though I have not meticulously gone through the decisions of the hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court cited on behalf of the applicants since they are not placed before me this day, but I am of the view that this argument can be heard at length at the time of hearing ...
Sri Shyam Sundar Chowdhury Vs. Sri N.C. Batabyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT146(HC)
S. Barman Roy, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 14.1.97 and decree dated 24.1.97 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge. Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 68 of 1996 affirming the Judgment dated 31.5.96 and decree dated 17.6.96 passed by the learned Additional Munslf, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 61 of 1979.2. The respondent/landlord Instituted the aforesaid suit for eviction of the appellant/tenant on the ground that the appellant/tenant sublet the suit premises without previous consent from the plaintiff/respondent to the sub-tenants. Other grounds taken in the plaint for ejectment of the appellant were that the appellant defaulted in payment of rent and also for plaintiff's bonafide requirements of the suit premises.3. The case in short is that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises wherein the defendant was Inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 140/-. the appellant was stated to be a habitual defaulter in paying the rents. Furt...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. the West Bengal State Audio Visual T ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT154(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 28.4.94 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in C.O. No. 10522 (W) of 1991, whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge directed as follows:--'In the circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed to give the petitioners cinema operators and others of the same category the aforesaid pay scale of Rs. 360-815 instead of their existing pay scale of Rs. 280- 617 and also to give the Assistant Operators and others belonging to the same category the immediately lower pay scale of Rs. 340-750. The respondents are directed to issue necessary administrative orders in that respect within a month from the date of communication of this order and thereafter the petitioners will be given fixation of pay including the subsequent fixation according to rules under the ROPA Rules, 1990. The petitioners shall be paid all arrears within 6 months from the date of communication of this order.'2. The fact of the matte...
Vikramjit Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Cal316
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 26-4-1996 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.C. 783 (W) of 1996. 2. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the petitioner had reasons to believe that his answer scripts are not available and he wanted an inspection thereof. The learned counsel further pointed out that during hearing before the Controller of Examination, he wanted a representative to represent his case which was denied. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 4, on the other hand, brought to our notice an order passed by the Controller of Examination dated 6th December, 1995, from a perusal whereof it appears that the said authority satisfied itself as regards existence of the answer scripts of the candidate and he further satisfied himself that there is nothing to interfere. It is only in the aforesaid situation, the learned trial Judge refused ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anand and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Cal)699,[1998]233ITR18(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. In this reference application, the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the subsidy of Rs. 2,85,923 received from the Indian Cotton Mills Federation was in the nature of voluntary and gratuitous payment and not liable to tax ?'The assessee is a registered firm carrying on the business of manufacture and export of hosiery goods and also commission business in several commodities. The assessee-company received Rs. 2,85,923 from the Indian Cotton Textile Mills Federation, Bombay, and claimed that it is not taxable as it was a casual receipt in the form of reward. The Income-tax Officer has rejected the assessee's contention on the ground that it arose out of their export business, and that it is not a case of casual receipt since the subsidy or cash incentive is allowed by the Government of India to all similar business concerns whoever is carrying on b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.P. Goenka and J.P. Goenka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR123(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. In compliance with our direction in an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question along with the statement of the case for our opinion :'Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in admitting that the unpaid sale price could be treated as borrowed capital within the meaning of Clause (vi) of Sub-section (1) Section 24 of the Income-tax Act, and in that view whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of all interest paid to the vendor company on the balance of purchase price as (well as ?) interest paid to Badri-das Keshav Prosad on such sum borrowed subsequently for payment of principal sum of unpaid purchase price to the vendor company ?'2. The assessee had filed the return on June 19, 1980. In the return the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,55,400 paid to Badridas Keshav Pro-sad which was paid as interest to Badridas Keshav Prosad. The Income-t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.P. Goenka and J.P. Goenka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Cal)156
ORDERMeena, J. In compliance of our direction in an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as `the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following question along with the statement of case for our opinion:'Whether, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law in admitting that the unpaid sale price could be treated as borrowed capital within the meaning of clause (vi) of section 24 of the Income Tax Act and in that view whether justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of all interest paid to the vendor company on the balance of purchase price as interest paid to Badridas Keshav Prosad on such sum borrowed subsequently for payment of principal sum of unpaid purchase price to the vendor company ?'2. The assessee had filed the return on 19-6-1980. In the return, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,55,400 paid to Badridas Keshav Prosad which was paid as interest to Badridas Keshav Prosad. The Income Tax Officer has allowed ...
Guru Prasad Biswas and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT215(HC)
S.K. Sen, J.1. In the instant writ petition the petitioners have challenged the betting and gambling of Horse Racesa) as immoral; andb) crime and social evil degenerating the Society and the Nation.The petitioners claim that they are Interested in the welfare of the Society and the petitioners are not trying to vindicate any personal right of them or to claim any personal benefit and the expenses of this proceedings are borne out by the petitioners personally. It was further been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the questions raised in this writ petition are questions of Constitutional obligation of the State, law and morality. The petitioners accordingly claim that the instant writ petition is in the nature of a public interest litigation.2. As legality of betting and gambling on horse race has been questioned, the proforma respondents Nos. 17, 18, 19, and 20 have been linpleaded, as betllng and gambling on horse race take place in those States. Proforma respondents Nos. 21...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »