Kolkata Court April 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.
Manmal Kothari and ors. Vs. Shree Sree Radha Raman Jew and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT373(HC)
S.K. Sen, J.1. The contention of the petitioners in the instant application is that the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed on 16th January, 1998. The petitioners applied for certified copy of the judgment on 6th February, 1998. It may be noted that for several days in the first week and third week of February, 1998, this court was closed. The appellant has not yet received the certified copy.2. The case of the appellant is that on 16th January, 1998, when the Judgment was delivered by the Division Bench, the appeal of the petitioners was not listed. A cause list of 16th January, 1998 of the said Division Bench has been produced before us. It cannot be disputed from the said list that the petitioners' matter did not appear in the cause list on that date. It is quite true that several appeals came up before the Division Bench against the said order of the learned single Judge, but these appeals were heard one after another. The Division Bench, however, on the basis of a common Judgm...
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-ii, W.B. Vs. M/S. Method Tradi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)3CALLT69(HC),[2000]246ITR588(Cal)
ORDERS.K. Sen, J.1. In the instant reference under section 256(2} of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short I.T. Act) for the assessment year 1984-85 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) three questions arise at the instance of revenue and three at the instance of the assessee. The decision in the appeal before the Tribunal was in favour of the assessee. The questions at the instance of the assessee have been sought for in respect of some points on the issue only because the reference was sought for by the department against the order of the Tribunal. The questions of law at the instance of the department are as follows:In respect of order of CIT (A) dated November 3, 1987.1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the accrual of interest on the loan advance by the assessee company to M/s. Shri Ambica Jute Mills Ltd. was not proper and in that view deleted the accrued interest of Rs. 1.15,625 for the period fro...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Method Trading and Investment Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN414(Cal)
Sen, J.In the instant reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), for the assessment year 1984-85, by the Tribunal, three questions arise at the instance of revenue and three at the instance of the assessee. The decision in the appeal before the Tribunal was in favour of the assessee. The questions at the instance of the assessee have been sought for in respect of some points on the issue only because the reference was sought for by the department against the order of the Tribunal. The questions of law at the instance of the department are as follows :In respect of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-11-1987)'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the accrual of interest on the loan advance by the assessee-company to Shri Ambica Jute Mills Ltd. was not proper and in that view deleted the accrued interest of Rs. 1,15,625 for the period from 1-6-1983 to 31-8-...
Dipti Prokash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose and National Central fo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)3CALLT283(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. The writ petitioner-appellant has preferred this appeal from an order dated 15th May, 1997 passed by U.C. Banerjee, J. (as his Lordship then was) in writ petition No. 8484 (W)/97 whereby the and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed, infer alia, on the ground that the petitioner being a probationary and his period of probation having been extended thrice, cannot have any legal right to question and order of termination of his probation on the ground that his service was not satisfactory.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. The appellant was appointed as Office Superintendent by the 1st Respondent on probation on 11.1.1995. Certain complaints were received by the Director as regard functioning of the appellant. Again a complaint was received by the Director relating to unsatisfactory performance of the appellant which was brought to his notice by a letter dated 15.4.1996. The said letter was replied to by the writ petitioner on 16.4.96. Allegedly o...
Jessop and Company Limited Vs. Larsen and Company Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)3CALLT326(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This is an application of the petitioner under sections 5, 11, 12 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. By making this application the petitioner wanted a direction for stay of the arbitration proceedings and consequential reliefs.3. In an earlier occasion the petitioner moved an application seeking the similar relief in addition to revocation of authority of the Umpire wherein consequentially a question arose as to whether the petitioner company is falling under the category of Sick Industrial Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 as amended up-to-date and if so. as to whether the arbitration proceedings can be proceeded before the Umpire. But such point was not stressed taking the plea that the petitioner made a special leave petition before the Supreme court of India for a decision on such point and sought for adjournments. However, during the course of the proceedings Mr. R. M.Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informed this court that the...
Gyan Bharti Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR567],(1999)IILLJ776Cal
B.P. Banerjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated February 28, 1996 passed in C.O. No. 14917 (W) of 1992 passed by ASHOK KUMAR CHAKRABORTY (as His Lordship then was) dismissing the writ petition holding inter alia, that the School management was liable to pay the statutory liability of making payment of provident fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in respect of Dearness Allowances paid by the Government to the School Authorities for payment to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School concerned.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and runs and manages an Educational Institution known as Gyan Bharati Vidyapith and the staff of the said School receive Government Dearness Allowance from the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) at the Government prescribed rate. The question that falls for our...
Shaw Wallace and Company Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)68ITD148(Kol.)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the block assessment for the block period of previous years 1987-88 to 27th August, 1996 passed under s.158BC of the IT Act, 1961.2. The facts of the case, in brief, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, at present, are that a search under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, was conducted at the office premises of the assessee, Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. at 4, Bankshall Street, Calcutta-700 001, and at its various premises on 27th August, 1996, and on subsequent dates. During the course of search various assets and documents were found and seized.The AO issued notice under s. 158BC on 31st January, 1997, calling upon the assessee to file its return of undisclosed income for the block period. The return was filed on 17th April, 1997. The AO passed the block assessment order for the block period on 28th November, 1997. On 27th August, 1996, the date on which the search commenced, the assessments for the two assessment years, namely, 1994-95 and 1995-96 we...
A.S. Rototech Limited and anr. Vs. C.T.O., Park Street Charge and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Cal9
ORDERM. K. Kar Gupta (Technical Member)1. In this application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the applicants have prayed for an order quashing the seizure of files and documents made by respondent No. 2 at the applicants' factory premises on March 7, 1997.2. The case of the applicants is that applicant No. 1 is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. Applicant No. 2 is the vice-president and company secretary of applicant No. 1. The applicant-company is a manufacturer of carbonless paper, continuous computer form and other allied products having its factory situated at Kamdevpur, 24-Parganas (North). The applicant-company is registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (in short, 'the 1941 Act'). Since its inception in 1989, the applicant had been incurring heavy losses and the company became a sick company during the year 1991. In February 1993, the applicant-company had made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Fina...
East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1154Cal
ORDEREDthat the applications under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act are allowed on contest. The applicant do get an order for a sum of Rs. 3956.46 p (Rs. 143.52+ Rs. 3812.94= Rs. 3956.46) as stated on the body of this order. The O.P. company is directed to pay off this computed amount to the applicant by February 28, 1997, in default the applicant shall have the liberty to resort to law to realise the said amount.This is my order which will govern both the cases.'7. The relevant portion of the reasons given by the First Labour Court justifying that it had jurisdiction to try the matter is given hereinbelow:' It is his definite case that he performed over time duty but was not paid for the same and hence the instant cases have cropped up. On the other hand in the pleadings it was the case of the O.P. company that the applicant did not perform any overtime duty and nor was he asked to do that. But from evidence of the O.P. W. 1 it becomes crystal clear that the applicant and others were p...
Shyam Sundar Batabyal Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT542(HC)
1. The Court : In this writ proceeding the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman) has challenged Memo. No. 833-IR/IR/11L-375/92 dated 6.6.97 issued by the Dy. Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Labour Department intimating the workman that in the terms of section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Government do not consider the matter to be a fit case for making reference to any adjudicating forum.2. It appears that the workman was an employee of respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the company). The company initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the workman and dismissed the workman from the services of the company. SJnce an Industrial dispute between the company and their workmen was pending before the 7th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, the company preferred an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Tribunal for approval of the action in dismissing the workman.3. It appears that by an order No. 36...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »