Kolkata Court April 1998 Judgments

Rudra Jyoti Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1999Cal9

Prabha Shanker Mishra, C.J.1. It is difficult for us to pick up the threads to have any well-knit statement of fact from the contents of the instant petition yet, after our several attempts and after hearing the petitioner in person and the learned Advocate representing the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, we have been able to gather some bits from here and some bits from there to have some comprehension of the narration in the petition.2. The Asiatic Society, Calcutta is impleaded as one of the respondents. We do not, however, find any reason why any prerogative order and/or direction be issued or made against the Society. Since, in our view, the Society is not a necessary party, we are not persuaded to issue any notice to it, name of the 5th respondent is accordingly deleted and expunged.3. Alleged mysterious disapparance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, according to the petitioner requires direction inter alia, to the respondents herein (1) to classify and disclose all documents relating to N...

Thomas Duff and Co. (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2003]133STC292(Cal)

ORDER1. The petitioner moved this application against the order of the Tribunal dated February 11, 1998. The only question involved in this case is whether the declaration form which was obtained by the petitioner from M/s. Indian Potash Ltd. at a belated stage could be taken for consideration for the purpose of granting exemption or concession under the provisions of Rule 27A(9) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Admittedly, at the time of assessment, the petitioner could not produce such declaration form for exemption on account of sale to a registered dealer. M/s. Indian Potash Ltd., is a registered dealer and M/s. Indian Potash Ltd., was not given the declaration form. Therefore, at the time of assessment, the petitioner could not produce the declaration form which was later produced by the petitioner before the Board but the same was not accepted on the ground that the declaration form could not be admitted at the belated stage. Admittedly, in the instant case the petiti...

Balurghat Transport Co. Itd. Vs. Assitant Commissioner of Income Ta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Cal)302

ORDERBY THE BENCH:This is an appeal arising out of the block assessment order passed by the Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-VII, Ca/cutta under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961.2. Two additions are in dispute before us. First issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 3 crores towards undisclosed income of the block period referable to the asst. yr. 1995-96 on the ground that the shares contributed by 4 Sapphire Group of companies in the assessee- company are not satisfactorily explained as regards the genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders. In other words, the addition was made under s. 68 of the IT Act on the ground that the subscription amount received from the four companies towards promoters quota is actually the undisclosed income of the assessee- company. The second issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 2,50,000 under s. 69C of the Act.3. The facts leading to the first issue are as under. The assessee- company was incorporated on 30th June, 1993. Prior to its incorporation, a re...

Kaveri Ultra Ploymers Ltd. Vs. Jenson and Nicholson (i) Limited

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)2CALLT46(HC)

1. This application is arising out of a commercial suit claiming money decree, enquiry into damages, interest and other consequential reliefs.2. The application is made by the defendant in this court by way of Master summons for the purpose of dismissing the suit for non-service of writ of summons.3. Mr. Sumit Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the chapter 8 Rule G and Chapter 10 Rule 35 of the Original Side Rules and submitted that in the earlier, unless time extended, summons shall be taken out and delivered to the Sheriff within 14 days from the filing of the plaint or the date of the order of amendment and in the later, when the suits and proceedings, which have not appeared in the prospective list within six months from the date of institution, may be placed before a Judge in Chambers for the purpose of dismissal for default. Writ of summons is right of the defendant from which a returnable date of the suit is available. Even acceptanc...

Dr. U.N. Biswas Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)2CALLT194(HC)

B.P. Banerjee, J.1. The questions of law involved in this writ application is of some public importance came up for consideration before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of the order dated 12th March, 1998, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 178 of 1998.2. The petitioner, who was at the relevant time and still is the Joint Director (East) of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Calcutta, was served with an article of charge sometime in February, 1998 for the purpose of holding a departmental enquiry, was as follows :'Dr. U.N. Biswas, IPS, (WB : 68), while posted as Joint Director (East), CBI, Calcutta and during the course of supervision of AHD Cases of Bihar failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and committed gross misconduct in as much as he acted irresponsibly and in excess of his authority in a manner unbecoming of a member of the All India Service in that :On 29/30.7.1997, he on his own and without prior app...

i.T.C. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1999]238ITR899(Cal)

1. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application.2. The appellants have come up in appeal against an order passed on March 10, 1998, by a learned single judge of this court.3. With the consent of the parties the appeal and the application for stay are taken together for disposal.4. It appears that the appellants, being aggrieved by an order passed by respondent No. 1 in terms of Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, approached the learned single judge by filing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein, inter alia, that the order be quashed on the ground that it was passed by respondent No. 1 in an improper exercise of jurisdiction by him. The learned single judge upon consideration passed an interim order to the effect that even though the special auditor in terms of Section 142(2A) of the Act may proceed and that the auditor (accountant) may go ahead with the auditing in accordance with law, the assessing authority sha...

Sankar Nath Pramanik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. The short question of law in this case for adjudication is as to whether the applicant on his re-employment in the civil service is entitled to get benefit of former military service rendered by him in the Indian Air Force w.e.f. 15.12.59 to 10.7.70 i. e. 10 years, 6 months and 26 days as "qualifying service" for the purpose of counting pension in the civil service under Rule 19(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 after having a break of ten years between the military service and civil service.2. The case of the applicant, in short, is that the applicant served in the Indian Air Force w.e.f. 15.12.59 to 10.7.70 i.e. a total period of service of 10 yrs., 6 months and 26 days after attaining the age of 18 years. Thereafter the applicant was discharged at his own request as per terms of the engagement i.e. 9 years regular service and 6 years reserved. The applicant received a military gratuity, D.C.R.G. of Rs. 2,325/-. Thereafter the applicant served in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL...

Shri Suraj Kumar JaIn Vs. Shri Ashok Kr. Roychowdhury and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)3CALLT135(HC)

S. Narayan, J. 1. This revisional petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.96 passed in Title Suit No. 73 of 1983. whereby the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Alipore rejected the defendant-petitioner's prayer under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the CPC, seeking amendment in the written statement by way of introducing certain paragraphs afresh in the original written statement.2. Whereas, it is true that a Court of Law is authorised by provision of law under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to alter or amend the pleadings of a party, which may be deemed necessary for the purpose of determining the real queslion in controversy between the parties, it does lies within the discretion of the Court to look into the bona fide behind such prayer for amendment and also to ensure that a point already set at rest by a High Court is not flouted. The instant case was one, which had a very chequered career during the long pendency of about 14 years before the trial court. A history of the...

Hindusthan Laminators Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)2CALLT281(HC),[2000]100CompCas472(Cal)

B.M. Mitra. J. 1. The common point of controversy which requires the considered scrutiny of this court and the petitioners in all the pending petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of india have Joined in chorus in contending that the statutory forum created under section 3 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 51 of 1993) does not have the jurisdiction to entertain prayers for mortgage in a substantive petition under section 19 of the said Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal as constituted under section 3 of the connected Act is conferred with jurisdiction in terms of section 19 to entertain and decide applications of the Banks and the Financial institutions. The said Tribunal is authorised to have assumed jurisdiction from the appointed day when the connected Act has come into force with regard to initiation of anyproceeding for recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial institutions and the said proceeding is required to be initia...

Mrs. Nandita Dutta Vs. Third Industrial Tribunal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)2CALLT157(HC),(1999)ILLJ1342Cal

D.P. Kundu, J. 1. This is an application under section 17B of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) preferred by the workman for payment in accordance with the provisions of section 17B of the said Act.2. It is an admitted fact that the workman died on 2.8.1997 and thereafter his legal heirs have been substituted in place and stead of the workman. It is also a fact that the writ proceeding was initiated by the employer in July, 1996.3. By a reference dated 20.8.90 following issue was referred to the Third industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication.'ISSUE Whether termination of service of Shrl RamesWar Jha is Justified? What relief, if any, is the workman entitled to?' 4. The Tribunal by its award dated 6.2.96 passed, inter alia, the following order:'In the result the workman succeeds and he is entitled to get the reliefs as he prayed. The main issue as framed in the order of reference is thus answered in the negative and as such the workman...