Kolkata Court February 1999 Judgments

Biswanath Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)1CALLT466(HC)

B.M. Mitra, J.1. This is an application for injunction in the connected writ petition No. 12399(W) of 1998. The prayers contained in the writ petition appears not only cryptic but couched in a language of ambiguity conveying no sense at all. The prayer in the petition for injunction Is for grant of interim order on the land mentioned in the petition as well as claim by the L.A. Collector till the disposal of the main matter. There is no specification about the nature of the interim order prayed for by way of suggestion from the Bar that by implication it is to be deciphered from the main writ petition but that has also not been spelt out in the language of clarity in the connected petition for injunction. It appears that originally there was an order of status quo passed by this court on 14.7.98 for a period of three years which is elapsed. The grievance of the applicant-petitioner is that because of the rotation of the Bench it could not be taken up for hearing in lime. This court doe...

Ashoke Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)2CALLT1(HC)

S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 10.12.98 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in W.P. No. 20530 (W) of 1998, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ-petitioner was dismissed. The writ-petitioner-appellant is the father of a student, Miss. Anima Sana. She appeared in the Secondary Examination in the year 1977 and was placed in Second Division having obtained 56% of the total marks. She was admitted in Baidyabati Charushlla Bose Balika Vidyalaya in Class XI in Science stream. She had also been promoted to Class XII. When her registration form was sent to the second respondent, the same was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that she was not qualified to be admitted. The learned trial Judge having considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties had come to the conclusion that the daughter of the writ-petitioner-appellant having not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for getting admission in the Science...

Daljit Kaur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. The petitioner Smt. Daljit Kaur has filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the detention of her husband Sri Jagpal Singh Sahauli under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act, for short). The respondent No. 2, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue in the purported exercise of his power under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, passed an order on the 19th June, 1998 directing that the detenu Jagpal Singh Sahauli @ Gorkha be detained and kept in custody in Dum Dum Central Jail, Calcutta as he (the detaining authority) was satisfied that with a view to preventing the said Jagpal Singh from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled goods in future, it was necessary to make the order of detention. It appears from the recitals in the statement of the grounds of detention that the Directorate of Revenue Intell...

Allahabad Bank and ors. Vs. S.K. Bhattacharya and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)1CALLT363(HC),[1999(82)FLR517],(2000)ILLJ945Cal

B. Bhattacharya. J. 1. Order dated November 3, 1998 passed by the Recovery Officer. Employees Provident Fund Organisation, West Bengal in Certificate Case No. R.Ex 1267 (W.B.) of 1998 is the subject matter of challenge in both the aforesaid revfslonal applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. C.O. No. 3247 of 1998 has been filed by four Nationalised Banks viz. Allahabad Bank, Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank and Punjab National Bank, while the other revlsional application being C.O. No. 2903 of 1998 has been filed by United Bank of India, who is also a proforma respondent in the other revlsfonal application filed by the four Nationalised Banks.3. On July 15. 1998, the Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation had Issued a public notice in 'Asian Age' for sale of the entire premises No. 41/A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta--700 017 for the purpose of realisation of certificate dues of Rs. 1.56 crores and Rs. 65 lakhs from two companies in execution of certific...

Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Cal)105,[1999]238ITR13(Cal)

Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. The writ application in the instant case raises interesting points about the interaction between the special procedure for block assessment introduced by Chapter XIVB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the regular procedure for assessment.2. The new Chapter deals with cases where there has been a search or seizure (as here) or a requisition under Section 132A.3. Broadly speaking, the provisions of the Chapter are that, once a search and seizure has been made, the assessee's total income shall be computed under Chapter XIVB for the past ten years, irrespective of whether reopening notice has been served under Section 148.4. This is referred to as block assessment. In the block assessment, the Assessing Officer is to take into account the materials obtained on search and seizure as well as all other materials which are in his possession, like, say, the returns already filed by the assessee.5. After computation of the block period income, the Assessing Officer should ded...

Smt. Nupur Mitra and anr. Vs. Basubani Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)2CALLT264(HC),[1999]35CLA97(Cal)

R. Pal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (referred to as the Act) from an order dated 31st July, 1998 passed by the Company Law Board dismissing the application of the appellants under section 111 of the Act for rectification of the share register of Basubani Pvt. Ltd. (referred to as the Company).2. The facts in the background of which the application under section 111 was made are as follows :--3. The appellants are the daughters of one Satya Bhusan Bose. Satya Bhusan took a premises on lease in 1945. He built a cinema house on the premises by the name of Basushree Cinema. He took a loan from the Union Bank for this purpose. In 1947 Satya Bhusan and three of his brothers Shanti Bhusan, Kanti Bhusan and Phani Bhusan promoted a company by the name of Basubanl Private Limited (referred to as the company) to manage the Cinema.4. The company was incorporated on 10th December, 1947 with an authorized share capital of 500 shares of which 175 ...

Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. Ajoy Kumar Saha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1999CriLJ2321

Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This is an application under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. in the cause title the application has been described as an application under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. In the prayer portion the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of the bail of accused opposite party No. 1 Ajoy Kr. Saha as well as for passing several orders and directions of different kinds, such as, direction upon the CBI to investigate the case in place of CID, West Bengal, direction for restoration of certain sections of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR, direction for arresting the accused persons for custodial interrogation, direction upon the learned SDJM to take certain document in safe custody from the I. O. and produce the same before this Court, direction for delivery of possession of certain flats alleged to have been forcibly and surreptitiously occupied by the accused Ajoy Kr. Saha etc. We have mentioned the prayers above only to indicate that this is p...

Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)2CALLT107(HC)

S. B. Sinha. J. 1. The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, questioned an order of punishment imposed upon him to quash order dated 10.7.92 and 29.1.93 as contained in annexure 'C' and 'G' respectively to the writ petition.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioner at all material times was working as a Head Constable in the 12th Battalion of the Border Security Force. He was charge sheeted on two charges as would appear from the charge sheet which is contained in annexure 'G' to the writ application and read as follows:-- '1. 'Leaving his picauet without orders from his superior officer in that he, at picauet Bornberia on 10.3.92 left the said picquet at about 2130 hrs. without orders from his superior officer.' 2. An act prejudicial to good order and disciplines of the force in that he, on 10.3.92, while on Naka duty in area village Bornberia withinthe jurisdiction of BOP Bornberia improperly and without authority ordered constable Baldev Singh to op...

Ledo Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Cal)99,[2000]241ITR605(Cal)

Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. This reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, E-Bench, Calcutta, for consideration of the following questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not owner of the assets which were purchased with effect from January 1, 1983, but the conveyance deed for which was registered on May 23, 1984, that is after the end of the previous year ?(2) Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to depreciation allowance and additional depreciation allowance in respect of theassets with effect from January 1, 1983, vide conveyance deed executed onMay 23, 1984 (3) Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the as...

Babu Dey Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2000CriLJ329

Basudeva Panigrahi, J. 1. The accused in S.T. 19(2)/89 34/90/Cri. 189 In the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Alipore is the appellant. The appellant was charged under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix Smt. Jyotsna Mridha on 30th June 1983 at 2/ 37A, Vidyasagar Colony within Jadavpur Police Station, Calcutta-47 and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. Out of the amount of fine so realised, an amount of Rs. 1500/- was directed to be paid to the victim lady as compensation.2. The skeletal picture of the prosecution story as revealed in the FIR is as follows:That the husband of the victim Harekrishna, Mridha was an employee of O.B.G.C, at the relevant time. He was residing with the prosecutrix Jyotsna Mridha at 2/37A, Vidyasagar Colony on the date of incident. The husband of the victim used...