Kolkata Court July 1999 Judgments
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Tapan Kumar Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT34(HC)
1. The Court : This application under Article 227 has been filed by the State Authorities against an order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal on 5th January 1998 setting aside the order of dismissal against the respondent.2. The respondent Joined the Calcutta Police as Sergeant on 1st April of 1975. It is on record that the respondent has been awarded about 64 awards for meritorious service. The otherwise unblemished record of service of the respondent suffered a set back after the respondent Joined as Sergeant in the Police Station in Bellaghata on 22nd April 1993.3. The first contretemps was faced by the respondent when he sought to execute an order passed by the High Court on 31st March 1994 relating to the construction of a wall of one Dr. Chowdhury. The respondent was strongly resisted by some local people. The resistance was overcome and the order of the court was carried out. The local people however complained to the Minister-in-Charge, Government of West Bengal, who r...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Construction Company Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)2CALLT62(HC)
The Court 1. A.P. No.498 of 1998 is filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act).2. G.A. No. 4178 of 1998 is filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the said Act praying infer alia, for an injunction restraining the respondent from invoking and/or taking any step for invoking the bank guarantee dated 19th March, 1996.3. G.A. No. 61 of 1999 is an application filed by the petitioner under section 14(2) of the said Act infer alia, praying for a declaration that the mandate of the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator ceased prior to 3rd December. 1998, declaration that the Arbitrator appointed by the respondent has jurisdiction or authority to function as Arbitrator and for consequential injunction restraining the respondent as also the Arbitrator appointed by it from taking any steps or further steps for adjudication of the disputes relating to claim of the petitioner against the respondent.4. All the three above applications have been heard a...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Dr. Samiron Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3CALLT39(HC)
The Court 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State against an order of the learned single Judge dated 8th August, 1995 in C.O.No. 18644(W)/1993 whereby the authorities were directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to give effect to the resolution dated 4th January, 1990 within the time framed therein.2. By the resolution dated 4th January. 1990 the executive council of the respondent University at its 109th meetings passed a resolution to the effect that appointment letter of all the candidates already recommended by the duly constituted selection committee for Merit Promotion and promotions under the career advancement programme to issue within a period of one month and the State Government be informed accordingly.3. The writ petitioners 21 in number Readers/Professors of various departments of the respondent/University filed the writ application seeking the substantive relief of implementation of the promotions of the writ petitioners under the Merit Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Aswini Kumar More and Lily More Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (1999)3CALLT440(HC)
N.A. Chowdhury, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Aswini Kumar More has challenged the order of detention of her husband, the detenu, passed by the Joint Secretary ot the Government of india, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, being No. F. No. 673/9/99 - CUS VIII dated New Delhi the 27th January 1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activites Act, 1974 as amended, hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act, with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future. The order of detention and the grounds on which the said order of detention was passed bearing the same date are contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. 2. It has been alleged inter alia in the grounds of detention that the documents seized from the residence and offices of the detenu and from other places and the statements of several pers...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Bireshwar Dutta Estates (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT165(HC)
R. Pal, J.1. The respondent is the owner of Premises No.32A, Brabourne Road, Calcutta (referred to as the suit premises). The suit premises are occupied by Calcutta police personnel. This appeal has been preferred from a Judgment and decree dated 9th September, 1998 by which khas possession of the suit premises has been granted to the respondent. Three months' time was allowed from the date of the decree for the appellant to vacate the suit premises. A further decree of Rs.66,702/- and Rs.51,45,161/- and further mense profit at the rate of Rs. 1.10,000/- per month from September, 1993 until delivery of vacant possession was also awarded.2. The suit premises was initially requisitioned by the appellant under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition & Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (referred to as the 1947 Act) by a notification dated 1st October, J958. Possession of the premises was handed over to the Calcutta Police on 4th October 1958. The rent compensation was f...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Kumar Dutta Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: (1999)3CALLT122(HC)
S.N. Bhattacharjee, J.1. In the instant writ application under Artticle 226 of the Constitution of India, the order and judgment dated 9.7.97 passed in O.A. No. 617 of 1996 by the State Administrative Tribunal dismissing the application of the petitioner has been challenged.2. The petitioner, a Constable of Special Branch of Calcutta Police was booked for security guard duty of Dr. Sudipta Roy, MLA with another constable Nishakar Panda. According to the petitioner, on 20.1.90 therewas an altercation between them over morning shift duties. It degenerated into a scuffle between the two and Nishakar who had revolver with him received shot injuries on his person as the bullet went off the revolver in the melie and the petitioner took up revolver from the ground where it dropped and absconded. A criminal case was started against him for committing offence under section 367 IPC which ended in the discharge of the petitioner under section 167(5) Cr.PC as the IO failed to submit charge-sheet w...
Tag this Judgment!Hemanta Koley Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT250(HC),1999(2)CHN745,II(2000)DMC158
G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and orders of conviction and sentences passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Sessions Trial Case No. 75/1988. Charge was framed against the appellant/accused under 3 heads, one under section 302 IPC for murder of his wife Malatl Koley, the other under section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of certain evidence of the said offence and the third one under section 498A IPC for subjecting his wife Malatl Koley, since deceased, to physical torture. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellant under all the heads of charge and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life for his conviction under section 302 IPC and also a fine of Rs. 2.000/- i.e. to R.I. for 6 months. He also sentenced the appellant to R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to R.I. for 1 year for his conviction under section 201 IPC and also to R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. to R.I. for 3 months for h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Cal)40,[1999]240ITR513(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this reference application, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions for our opinion :'Question raised in R. A. No. 21 (Cal) of 1988 : Whether, having regard to the fact that the assessee had income from the shares of a company in which the donor of the said shares had substantial interest within the meaning of Section 13(2)(h) read with Section 13(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding the provisions of Section 13(2) of the said Act were not attracted ?Question raised in R. A, No. 22(Cal) of 1988 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that depreciation claimed in the accounts by the assessee was an outgoing for the purpose of determination of income in terms of Section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in that view deleted the addition so made in this regard ?'2. The asse...
Tag this Judgment!Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR579(Cal)
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. In this writ application I have called for detailed arguments even before filing of affidavits. This has been done to expedite the matter. The reason why such expedition is needed is this. The order under challenge is an order of the Tribunal recalling its earlier order passed in appeal. The date of the recall is June 1, 1999, and the date of the earlier order is April 22, 1998.2. By that earlier order, the Tribunal had set aside a block assessment made under Chapter XIVB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By reason of the order of recall, the set aside block assessment revives. If instead of hearing the writ, a stay is granted, it will completely freeze assessment proceeding until further steps are taken. This is not a desirable course, as the matter, if the details are grasped, is really very short, usual and simple.3. After the Tribunal passed its order in April, 1998, an Explanation was added to the Income-tax Act in Chapter XIVB to Section 158BA and under that Explan...
Tag this Judgment!Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Cal)502
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J:In this writ application I have called for detailed arguments even before filing of affidavits. This has been done to expedite the matter, The reason why such expedition is needed is this, the order under challenge is an order of the Tribunal recalling its earlier order passed in appeal. The date of the recall is 1st June, 1999, and the date of earlier order is 22nd April, 1998.By that earlier order the Tribunal had set aside a block assessment made under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By reason of the order of recall, the set aside block assessment revives. If instead of hearing the writ, a stay is granted, it will completely freeze of assessment proceeding until further steps are taken. This is not a desirable course, as the matter, if the details are gripped, is really very short, usual and simple.2. After the Tribunal passed its order in April, 1998, an Explanation was added to the Income Tax Act in Chapter XIV-B to s. 158BA. By that Explanation, r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »