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.
Manjushree Minerals Ltd. Vs. Cegat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(104)ELT15(Cal)
ORDERM.H.S. Ansari, J.1. As identical facts are involved, the two writ petitions are taken up analogously and are disposed of by this common order.2. Certain relevant facts alone need to be stated. They are that the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 24th April, 1992 imposing a penalty consequent upon seizure of the goods. Aggrieved against the said orders the petitioners preferred their respective appeals before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). Along with the said appeals, the petitioners preferred applications under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for waiver of the precondition of deposit of duty which was subject matter of the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 25th July, 1996 allowed the miscellaneous applications on the condition that the petitioners deposit 25% of the impugned penalty within a timeframe. The time so fixed was three months from the date of the order and with a direction that the compliance shall be ...
Dipankar Sengupta and anr. Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR212],(1999)ILLJ208Cal
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. These two appeals filed by the writ petitioners in the aforementioned cases although arose out of an order of the learned trial Judge refusing to pass an interim order, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petitions and the appeals were heard together. 2. The writ petitioners Dipankar Sengupta and Chittaranjan Samanta were posted as Assistant Manager and Deputy General Manager. Both the Writ Petitioners were charge-sheeted in January, 1991 for commission of alleged misconduct, which is to the following effect: Articles of Charge No. 1 During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance) of Calcutta Branch, you had processed, jointly with the Asstt. Manager (Advance), proposal for sanction of Bills Discount Limits of Rs. 25.00 lacs each to 18 companies which are directly or indirectly associated/connected with Hemraj Mahabir Prasad (HMP) Group enjoying substantial credit facilities with the Bank, as per An-nexure 'A' hereto. While processing the ...
Hindustan Paints Supply Company Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR504],(1998)IILLJ845Cal
ORDERRumapal, J. 1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ application is an award passed by the 3rd Industrial Tribunal on May 4, 1995. The award was passed under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The only question which arises for determination in the writ application is whether the provisions of Section 33-A at all applied.2. The facts, on the basis of which, the impugned award was passed are as follows:The respondent workman who was employee of the writ petitioner Company had received an order dated February 28, 1993 from Chandni Paints stating that the respondent-workman haying attained superannuation he was retired from services with immediate effect. According to the petitioner Company, the workman, was not at all an employee of the petitioner, but was employed by Chandni Paints. This aspect of the matter cannot be reagitated by the petitioner at this stage because the point which was essentially a question of tact was ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Macneill Magore Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]232ITR945(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. In this reference application the following questions are referred for our opinion :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the Assessing Officer in the assessment allowed relief under Section 35B(l)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only on the ground that there have been changes in the said Section from the assessment year 1982-83 without applying his mind to the conditionalities embedded in the Section 35B(l)(b)(iv) of the said Act, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the order of the Assessing Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and thereby cancelling the order under Section 263 of the said Act passed by the Commissioner ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the Assessing Officer while making the disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the assessment did not examine whether payments of gratuity excluded in the above computatio...
Bhagchand JaIn Vs. P.F. Inspector
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR333],(2000)IILLJ599Cal
D.P. Sircar, J.1. All these cases under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are challenging the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Court, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas over the same matter involving the same person and over the same incident and as such all those cases, filed challenging the respective order in different complaint cases over the self-same issue are taken up together and covered by this single judgment.2. The petitioner's case is that at one point of time he was the Director of Kankinara Company Limited, the accused No. 1 in all the complaint cases before the learned Magistrate over the same issue namely complaint Case No. C/302/90, complaint Case No. C/303/90, complaint Case No. C/304/90 and 3 complaint Case No. C/305/90 and complaint Case No. C/308/90. The petitioner resigned from the same Company in 1989. The O.P. a Provident Fund Inspector lodged the aforesaid complaint against the Company as above implicating also the petitioner among others alleging commission ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shirinbai Abdullabhai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Cal)625,[1998]232ITR895(Cal)
1. As per our directions on an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reopening of the assessment proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was legally invalid ?'2. The asessee filed return of income in July 1974, showing income from house property at Rs. 6,785. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on March 29, 1977, accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the Inspector of Income-tax was deputed to evaluate the investment made by the assessee in the construction of a house property at P-l, Hyde Lane, Calcutta, who reported in the matter stating that the house has been constructed by the assessee and his wives jointly, viz., Smt. Fatemabai Hassenali and Smt. Fizza Abbasbhai. A lift has also been installed in that house. As per the repor...
Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR725(Cal)
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This is an application filed by the writ petitioner, inter alia, challenging an order dated June 24, 1994, passed by the Appropriate Authority of Income-tax in proceedings bearing Case No. AA/CAL/1022 of March, 1994.2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner submitted Form No. 37-1 in duplicate under Section 269UC(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for permission of the concerned authorities to transfer the said property being the premises No. 15B, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Calcutta. Along with the said Form No. 37-1 the petitioner also filed the copy of the sale agreement which is also annexed to the writ petition being annexure-A. In this writ application, the writ petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents to issue the 'no objection certificate' under Section 269UL(3) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the transfer of the industrial undertaking in terms of the agreement entered into between the writ petitioner and the private respo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees of Keshav Mohta Family Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: [1998]232ITR875(Cal)
1. In this instant application, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion :''Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Explanation (1) below Section 164(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the 'would be wife' of the minor satisfied the above condition and thereby directing the Assessing Officer to tax in the status of association of persons at the rate applicable to association of persons and not at the maximum marginal rate ?'2. The assessee is a trust which filed a return with the Income-tax Officer, SC-I, Calcutta, on July 29, 1980. The trust was settled with a trust deed dated March 27, 1979. From the trust deed it is seen that Shri Krishna Kumar Mohta settled Rs. 5,000 on the 'would be wife' of the minor, Shri Keshav Kumar Mohta. Shri Krishna Kumar Mohta had made himself trustee jointly with Shri Narendra Kumar Mohta.3. The source of income of the trust is share ...
Chief Security Officer, Rpf and ors. Vs. Ganga Prasad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)3CALLT106(HC)
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.4.1987, whereby the writ application filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the order removing them from service was allowed. The facts relating to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under;2. On 16.8.1983 the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the members of the Railway Protection Force in the Eastern Railway were on duty when Train No. EC 948 Down stopped at Down Home Signal, Bhaklarnagar between 15-30 hours to 15-35 hrs. A gang of about 15 criminals broke open one container allached to the said Train and committed a theft of 14 Television Sets valued at Rs. 27,711/. The allegation against the respondent No. 1 and 2 was that both these persons were physically present on duly when this train stopped and the aforesaid theft occurred and yet they did not perform their duty properly resulting in the aforesaid theft. it was the allegation against the two respondents that it was within their knowledg...
Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati and ors. Vs. State of Wes ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Cal15
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J.1. This matter was assigned by the Hon'ble Chief-Justice before this Bench. The writ application has been filed by Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati, Imam and Khatib. Tipu Sultan; Shahi Masjid, Dharamtala and Chairman Gharib Nawaz Educational and Charitable Society, Calcutta and eight others for a declaration that Rule 3 of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 vis a vis Schedule III of the said Rule do not apply in case of Mosques more particularly at the time of call of Azan from the Mosques and for the further declaration that Schedule III of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution. The petitioners also prayed for withdrawal of all conditions and restrictions which were notified by the Police and other authorities pursuant to the order passed in the case of Om Birangana Religious Society v. State, reported in 100 CWN 617.2. By the Judgment dated 1st of April, 1996, certain restricti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »