Kolkata Court August 1999 Judgments

Syed Wasique Bahadur Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)1CALLT24(HC)

S.B. Sinha. ACJ.1. This application in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a former student of Nawab Bahadur Institution, Murshldabad praying for the following reliefs:--'(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents specifically the Respondents Nos. 2, 6 and 7 to forbear from doing anything pursuant to and In furtherance to the said tender a copy being annexure 'G' to this application which may spoil, disfigure or destruct any portion of Nawab Bahadur Institution and its original fabric. (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent Nos. 2 and 6 to renovate and/or repair the school building by taking and completely following the Instructions of Archaeologists and Excavatlonlsts in the matter of preservation of the original fabric of the school building. (c) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents Nos. 2 and 6 not to construct R.C.C. ceilings in the said school building and/or to do any tear ...

Sri Brojo Gopal Bhattachryya Vs. Bar Council of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)1CALLT77(HC)

V. K. Gupta, J. 1. The order dated 28th January. 1997 passed by the learned single Judge is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant before us was enrolled as an Advocate with the Respondent No. 1, Bar Council of West Bengal in terms of the Advocates Act. 1961. It appears that a complaint in respect of and against the aforesaid enrolment of the appellant was received by the said Bar Council of West Bengal. One Nlrode Chandra Biswas has preferred this complaint. The complaint appears to have been made on 21,9.91. We do not wish to enter Into the detailed facts forming the subject matter of this complaint or other relevant facts leading to the passing of the final Impugned order by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council in view of the order that we propose to pass in this appeal. We are saying so because we do not want to make any comments in this appeal which may tend to influence the outcome of the pending proceedings, as would be seen later.2. The complaint dated 21.9.91 made ...

Taulis Pharma Ltd. Vs. Bengal Immunity Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]108CompCas237(Cal)

Satya Brata Sinha, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-4-1999, passed by a learned single judge of this court whereby and whereunder an application filed by the appellant herein for winding up of a company was dismissed.The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act').2. The admitted facts of the matter are that pursuant to a contract between the parties the petitioner had sold and delivered to the company diverse quantities of goods which the company had received and accepted but failed and/or neglected to pay the price thereof despite several demands. The respondent has terminated the contract.3. A statutory notice in terms of Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, was served but the same had not been replied to. It is also admitted that the company has filed an application in terms of the second prov...

R.C. Mitter and Sons (Fertilizer) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Andrew Yule and Co. Lt ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]109CompCas421(Cal)

Satya Brata Sinha, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 28, 1998, passed by a learned single judge of this court whereby and whereunder an application for winding up of the company under Sections 433, 434, 439, 443, 448, 449 and 450 of the Companies Act, 1956, was dismissed.2. The fact of the matter is as follows :According to the applicant-appellant a sum of Rs. 1,33,750 together with the interest at the rate of 21 per cent, per annum from August 19, 1993, till payment was owing and due to the respondent-company. The appellant herein through its advocate served a statutory notice upon the company on March 12, 1996, stating :'In the premises our client is entitled to realise from you the said sum of Rs. 1,33,750 being the price of 25 M. T. of muruate of potash supplied to you in terms of our clients Bill No. A-2, dated August 19, 1993.Our client is also entitled to claim and claims interest at the rate of 21 per cent, per annum from August 19, ...

Prakash Kumar Singhi Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)2CALLT315(HC)

The Court 1. These two writ petitions namely, W.P. No. 1804 of 1996 and W.P. 2346 of 1996 are directed against the Judgment and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 as well as Competent Authority whereby petitioners were directed to surrender 1474.38 S.M. and 1144.46 sq.ft. of excess land to the Government. Petitioners have Inter alia claimed that they are the owners of the portions of premises No. 9/3B, Garlahat Road, 17 and 19. Garcha 1st Lane and 1/64, Garcha 1st Lane, Calcutta. Petitioners however, under wrongly legal advice, filed a return under section 6(1) of Urban Land [Celling & Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' although they do not posses any land in excess of their ceiling limit.2. The Competent Authority prepared a draft statement under section 8 of the said Act and served the same to the petitioners. The had, therefore, . objected to the said draft statement but the competent Auth...

Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Debts Recovery Tribun ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1999Cal206

ORDERDibyendu Bhusan Dutta, J. 1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against two orders being Order No. 14dated 26-12-97 and Order No. 15 dated 15-1-98 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal in case No. T.A. 60/96. The said case arose out of a suit which was filed in this High Court on its Original Side and which subsequently stood transferred to the Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery of debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993. A consortium of Financial Institutions comprising the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and another viz. Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI) advanced a loan to the respondent No. 4 company and the petitioner No. 1 company (of which the petitioner No. 2 was an Executive Director and a shareholder) stood as guarantor in relation to the said loan transaction and the suit was filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for recovery of that loan. 2. According to the petitioners, a compromise relating ...

Parag Nivesh Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1999]240ITR419(Cal)

Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated December 24, 1997, issued under Section 158BC/BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1961), and prayed that the said notice be quashed.2. The petitioner is a private limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, and the company was incorporated on March 11, 1993. The assessee carries on business of trading in shares and securities and commodities and also make investments from time to time. The petitioner company's issued and subscribed share capital is Rs. 48,52,000 of which Rs. 15,02,000 was raised by March 31, 1994, and Rs. 55,50,000 was raised during the financial year March 51, 1996. Its shareholders are income-tax assessees and subscribed to the share capital by account payee cheques and the shares held by them are duly reflected in their accounts filed with their respective Assessing Officers.3. The assessee has filed the income-tax return for the assessm...

Parag Nivesh (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Cobowsioner of Income Tax and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Cal)139

ORDERY. R. MEENA, J.By this petition petitioner has challenged the notice dt. 24th Dec., 1997, issued under section 158BC/BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act 1961), and prayed that the said notice be quashed.2. The petitioner is a private limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, and the company was incorporated on l lth March, 1993. The assessee carries on business of trading in shares and securities and commodities and also makes investments from time to time. The petitioner company's issued and subscribed share capital is Rs. 48,52.000 of which Rs. 13,02,000 was raised by 31st March, 1994, and Rs. 35,50,000 was raised during the financial year 31st March, 1996. Its shareholders are income-tax assessees and subscribed to the share capital by A/c payee cheques and the shares held by them are duly reflected in their accounts filed with their respective A0s.The assessee has filed the income-tax return for the assessment year 1994-95 disclosin...

Sri Panchanan Dutta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. The question is whether the respondents are justified to withhold the entire gratuity money of retired Railway servant for non-vacation of the Railway quarter after retirement. The case of the applicant, Shri Panchanan Dutta is that he retired from the Railway service on superannuation with effect from 30.9.1994 after rendering 40 years in the Department. After retirement all settlement and retirement benefits have been granted to the applicant including pension, but the respondents arbitrarily withheld the gratuity money payable to the applicant on retirement for non-vacating the official accommodation.According to the applicant, he could not vacate the official accommodation since he has not been able to build any house for not getting the above retirement benefit. He is getting only pension which is not sufficient for maintaining his family during these hard days.But the Railway respondents withheld the above retirement benefits in violation of the principle of natural justice a...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sijua (Jharriah) Electric Supply Corpor ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1999]240ITR632(Cal)

Y.R. Meena, J.1. On a reference application, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 13,35,467 is allowable under Section 40A(7)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The assessee is carrying on business of production and sale of electricity. On July 17, 1975, the electricity undertaking was taken over by the Bihar State Electricity Board and all assets, liabilities etc., vested in the said Board under the Bihar Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1979. The compensation money receivable by the assessee-company for such acquisition was not finalised on the date of making assessment. The assessee had claimed the gratuity payable as on July 17, 1975, at Rs. 13,35.467 excluding a sum of Rs. 1,17,418 which was allowed in the assessment for 1974-75. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that there is a provision for payment of gra...