Kolkata Court August 1999 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.
Ajit Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. M/S. Tinplate Company of India Limit ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT54(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J. 1. A very short question is involved for determination In this appeal. On May 21, 1986 an Award was passed by a learned Judge,1st Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta whereby retrenchment of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) was set aside and the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was granted benefits of wages upto the period whereby the contract of service between him and the appellant was to terminate.2. The appellant's case all along was that the respondent No. 1 was serving under the appellant under a contract of service and that the period of such contract service was three years. The contract provided for earlier termination of service also by serving a notice of three months. This notice having been served, the service of respondent No. 1 was terminated by the appellant before the expiry of three years, but he challenged the same on the ground that he being a workman, the termination was by way of retrenchment, and, therefore. It being illegal, he was entitled ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Babcock and Wilcox of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: [2000]241ITR583(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. On these five reference applications, i.e., Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1987, Income-tax Reference No. 41 of 1990, Income-tax Reference No. 70 of 1987, Income-tax Reference No. 93 of 1987 and Income-tax Reference No. 199 of 1993, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion :2. The common question for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 in Income-tax Reference No. 41 of 1990 and Income-tax Reference No. 5 of 1987 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the claim of the investment allowance of the assessee under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in that view was correct in modifying the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for allowing the claim ?'3. The common question in the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82 and 1983-84 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justifi...
Tinplate Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Ajit Kumar Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR687],(2000)IILLJ389Cal
V.K. Gupta, J.1. A very short question is involved for determination in this appeal. On May 21, 1986 an award was passed by a learned Judge, 1st Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta whereby retrenchment of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) was set aside and the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was granted benefits of wages up to the period whereby the contract of service between him and the appellant was to terminate.2. The appellant's case all along was that the respondent No. 1 was serving under the appellant under a contract of service and that the period of such contract service was three years. The contract provided for earlier termination of service also by serving a notice of three months. This notice having been served, the service of respondent No. 1 was terminated by the appellant before the expiry of three years, but he challenged the same on the ground that he being a workman, the termination was by way of retrenchment and, therefore, it being illegal, he was entitled ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Babcock and Wilcox of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Cal)352
Y. R. MEENA, J.:On these five reference applications, i.e., IT Ref. No. 5 of 1987, IT Ref. No. 41 o1990, 1,11 Ref. No. 70 of 1987, IT Ref. No. 93 of 1987 and IT Ref. No. 199 of 1993 the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion :Common question for asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 in IT Ref. No. 41 of 1990 and IT Ref. No. 5 of 1987.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the claim of the investment allowance of the assessee under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in that view was correct in modifying the order of the CIT passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for allowing the claim ?'The common question in asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981-82 and 1983-84'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee fulfilled the conditions laid down in s. 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in that view upholding the order ...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Ashoke Ranjan Chandra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT58(HC)
Ruma Pal J. 1. The Issue Involved in this writ petition ts whether the respondent No.1, an ad-hoc appointee could be regularised in service. The State Administrative Tribunal has held that he could and has directed regularlsntlon of the services of the respondent No.1. The petitioners have assailed this decision before us.2. The situation arose because vacancies in the Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers office in the Commercial Taxes Directorate could not be filled up as Recruitment Rules had not been finalised. To meet the urgent need to fill up the existing vacancies, an order was passed on 18th July, 1994 by which the Governor authorised the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal to make ad-hoc appointment to the posts of Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers from amongst the existing eligible employees of the Commercial Tax Directorate pending finalisation of the Recruitment Rules.3. In compliance with this order, the Commissioner wrote to the different branches of the Directorate of...
West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. Md. Sari ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT308(HC),2000(1)CHN240,[2000(86)FLR186],(2000)IILLJ708Cal
The Court 1. The respondent was given a temporary appointment on 17th October, 1996 on contractual basis temporarily for six months till the pleasure of the Chairman. This order was subsequently extended from time to time. The respondent No. 1 filed a writ application asking for regularisation of his service. In a judgment delivered by us today viz, State of West Bengal and Others v. Ashoke Ranjan Chendra (WP. TT No. 1 of 1999) dated 18th August, 1999 in a similar situation this Court held on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in J&K; Public Service Commission v. Narider Mahon &Ors; : (1994)ILLJ780SC ; Surinder Singh Jomual v. State of J&K; : (1996)IILLJ795SC as well as the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dharambir (1990) 6 SCC 165 that an ad hoc appointee has no right to be regularised unless the Recruitment Rules so specifically provide.2. The learned Judge disposed of the writ application by directing the Chairman, West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporat...
Kalyan Ranjan Basak Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Benc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT510(HC)
R. Pal, J.1. The petitioners are all Junior Engineers in the Farakka Barrage Project (FBP). In this writ application they have challenged thedecision of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting their claim for parity of pay scales with Junior Engineers in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD). Their claim for parity was based on the following facts:2. Junior Engineers, CPWD and Junior Engineers, FBP had been consistently treated on par. Previously Junior Engineers CPWD were known as 'Sectional Officers' and Junior Engineers, FBP were known as 'Overseers'. In 1973 the Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power in a letter to the General Manager, FBP stated :'The service conditions and emoluments etc. of the Section Officers in the Central Public Works Department and the Overseer of the Farakka Barrage Project are the same and as such their duties should also be the same. The Overseers of the Farakka Barrage Project therefore, should maintain tools and plants includi...
Rajendra Kumar Mohta Vs. Abhijit Das Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT655(HC),1999(2)CHN471,1999CriLJ4733
S. Barman Roy, J. 1. By this application under section 482 Cr.PC petitioner has prayed for quashing complaint being NDPS Case No.7 of 1999 pending befor the learned Special Judge, 6th Bench (NDPS Act), Calcutta.2. Case in short it that Respondent No. 1 being the Senior intelligence Officer. Directorate of Revenue intelligence, Calcutta Zonal Unit lodged a complaint in the court of the learned Special Judge, 6th Bench , City Sessions Court, Calcutta under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotrophic substance Act, 1985 alleging, inter alia , that acting upon an intelligence that some stamps of the office of the director General of Foreign Trade, Commissioner of Customs and other Government offices and documents relating to Illegal importation and clearance of copper cathode and other goods under Duty Exemplion entitlement certificate scheme were secretly kept in the office room of the petitioner at Room No. 354, Marshall House, 3th floor, 25, Strand Road, 33/1, Netrajl Subhas Road...
Bormah Jan Tea Co. (1936) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR477(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. By this reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee-company for the assessment year 1984-85 on September 12, 1986, could not be treated as disclosure of concealed or additional income and was not covered by the Amnesty scheme ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-company was not entitled to immunity from the levy of interest under Sections 139(8) and 215 and from the levy of penalty, under Section 275(1)(a) and the Income-tax Act, 1961, as envisaged under the Amnesty scheme ?'2. The assessee is a limited company. It filed its return on November 29, 1985, declaring a total income of Rs. 11,69,100. Thereafter the assessee f...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Namita Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ303,(1999)3CALLT135(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is directed against a Judgment award dated 31.7.1996 passed by B. N. Biswas, additional District Judge, (Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) Purulia in M. A. C. No. 1 of 1994. The question which has arisen for consideration is as to whether this appeal is maintainable.2. Mr. Das the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that as the Judgment under appeal is without any reason and furthermore as in no case of compensation to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- had been awarded for death of a 15 year old girl, the impugned Judgment should be set aside. The learned counsel in this connection has referred to a series of decisions. There may be an arguable question as regard the quantum of compensation but in this appeal the only question which arises for consideration is whether such question can be gone into by this Court.3. In terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »