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.
P.K. Ghosh Vs. Kailash Kumar Mazodia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(117)ELT14(Cal)
S.N. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order, dated 19-4-1994 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in writ application marked as Matter No. 1942 of 1986 whereby the learned trial Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein challenging the legality of search and seizure, dated 8-11-1986, 9-11-1986 & 10-11-1986 conducted by the appellants as also the summons dated 12-11-1986 issued by the appellants, D.R.I. Authorities, Calcutta under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The writ petitioner under the name and style of Steel and Allied Product Exporters at 53D Chowl Patty Road, Calcutta used to manufacture and export various engineering goods. The petitioner obtained advance licence under Duty Exemption Scheme up to the value of Rs. 38,86,000/- for import of G.P. Sheets/Coil Secondary/Prime quality 399 M.T. The Licence was valid for 18 months, subject to the condition that the petitioner was required to export various good...
Raigarh Jute and Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT781(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. This is a writ application challenging an order of rejection by the Designated Authority passed under the KVSS.2. The declaration in this case was made with regard to certain Central Excise Duties which are the subject of a writ petition pending in this Court.3. The writ petitioner is in enjoyment of an interim order.4. The writ petitioner made the declaration on 27-1-1999 signed it and sent it by speed post on the same date.5. The Designated Authority received the declaration on 2-2-1999.6. According to Section 88 of the KVSS, the declarant is to make a declaration to the Designated Authority. Such declaration was to be made within 31-1-19997. As the above point is a pure point of law, I have refused the prayer of the respondents for filing of affidavits as that will merely delay the matters.8. The point of law is whether a declarant makes a declaration under the KVSS to the Designated Authority within 31-1-1999, if the declarant signs it within that date and ...
The Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Sudera Enterprises Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT63(HC)
S.N. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single judge or this court dated 14.7.98 whereby the plaintiffs application being G.A. No. 3057 of 1997 In suit No. 93B of 1997 was allowed.2. On 6.11.74 an agreement was entered Into between the appellant and the respondent herein whereby the respondent agreed to grant lease in respect of the centrally air-conditioned 7th floor of the premises No. 1. Shakespeare Saranl, containing an area of 17320 sq. ft. on the terms and conditions contained therein for a period of 21 years with an option of renewal of further term of 10 years. The lease was to commence upon the completion of the 7th floor which was under construction. On the same day by a registered deed of mortgage the respondent mortgaged in favour of the appellant the entire premises No. 1. Shakespeare Saranl, Calcutta, in order to secure repayment of a sum of Rs. 17,14,680/- which was lent and advanced by the appellant. The terms of repayment...
Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR331(Cal)
Ajay Nath Ray, J. 1. The writ application is concerned with the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, declaration made in time by the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94.2. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee was assessed to a refund order. For the year 1992-93, whether there is any refund order or not there is at least no tax liability. For the assessment year 1993-94, there was assessed liability for the reason of which the assessee filed the declaration and sought for payment of the proportionate amount as per the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme for settlement of the disputes which were then pending before the Tribunal. 3. The impugned order of the designated authority dated the January 25, 1999, sought to dismiss and reject the declaration filed by the assessee-writ petitioner. 4. The reason appearing on the face of that impugned order of rejection is that there was no tax arrear to be compounded or settled as per the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme in regard to the assessment year 1...
Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Cal)8
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.The writ application is concerned with KVSS declaration made in time by the assessee for the assessment year 1993-94.2. For the assessment year 1991-92 the assessee was assessed to a refund order. For the year 1992-93, whether there is any refund order or not there is at least no tax liability. For the assessment year 1993-94 there was assessed liability for the reason of which the assessee filed the declaration and sought for payment of the proportionate amount as per KVSS for settlement of the disputes which were then pending before the Tribunal.The impugned order of the Designated Authority dated the 25-1-1999, sought to dismiss and reject the declaration filed by the assessee writ petitioner.The reason appearing on the face of that impugned order of rejection is that there was no tax arrear to be compounded or settled as per the WSS in regard to the assessment year 1993-94.Correspondence ensured thereafter and the reason why the Designated Authority rejected t...
Surita Bhattacharjee Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT28(HC),1999(2)CHN451
G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. Both these matters, one purportingly a reference under section 395(2) Cr.PC and the other an application under section 439 Cr.PC for bail are being disposed of by this order.2. Sm. Surlta Bhattacharjee. the petitioner herein praying for bail, was facing trial in the 4th court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Barasat on a charge under section 302 1PC along with the co-accused Rajib Ghosh who was charged under section 302/120B IPC. The oral argument of both sides in the sessions trial in the court below was concluded on 15.1.99 when both the accused persons were on ball. On that date 15.2.99 was fixed for delivery of judgment. On 2.2.99 a written argument was submitted on behalf of the defence but the court below directed the same not to form part of the record as it was filed before the conclusion of the oral argument In compliance with section 314 Cr.PC. Judgment however could not be delivered on 15.2.99 as both the accused remained absent on that date and p...
Eastern Paper Mills Limited Vs. the Board for Industrial and Financial ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT69(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. The appellant herein is the 'Company' which has been directed to be wound up by an order dated 3.8.1994 of the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 281 of 1993. Aggrieved thereby the instant appeal has been preferred.2. After having heard the learned counsel for either parties we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to deal with various contentions urged before the court by the learned counsel for either parties and only certain relevant facts need to be noted.They are :--the company on or about 17.1.89 made reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short BIFR.) under section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After an enquiry the BIFR on 11.12.1989 under section 10(1) of the Act came to the conclusion that the company has become a Sick Industrial Company within the meaning of the provision of section 3(1)(b) of the Act. It was, therefore, dee...
M/S. Jaybee Mercantile Ltd. and ors. Vs. Mayor-in-council, Calcutta Mu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT46(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The Instant writ appeal Is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8th September. 1998 whereby and whereunder, the order of the Mayor-in-Council dated 31st December, 1991 directing demolition In respect of the premises No. 3, Madge Lane. Calcutta was upheld as valid and the writ application was dismissed.2. The order under challenge in the writ application being the order passed by the Mayor-in-Council arose out of a direction issued in that behalf by the court in a Civil Suit. It may, therefore, be necessary to briefly refer to certain facts leading to the passing of the said order by the Mayor-in-Council Impugned in the writ petition before the learned single Judge.3. In or about January, 1982, a building plan was sanctioned for premises No.3, Madge Lane, Calcutta consisting of basement, ground, first and second floors.4. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation served a notice under section 401 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act for demoliti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Unit Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: [1999]240ITR718(Cal)
1. By this reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at page 2 of the statement of case for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding the view that the assessee-company was entitled to investment allowance as it was an industrial company according to the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Assessing Officer to allow the asses-see-company the benefit of investment allowance as claimed ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1985-86. On scrutiny of the books of account, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had claimed investment allowance at Rs. 90,048 on the assets worth Rs. 3,60,192. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the investment...
Steel Authority of India Vs. Engineering Construction Services
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT442(HC)
A. Lala, J. 1. This is an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, made by the petitioner challenging the validity of the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, a retired Judge of this Hon'ble Court on 1st January, 1998.2. It is to be remembered that initially a suit was instituted in the High Court at Calcutta by the respondent herein preferring various claims for the purpose of obtaining decree on such claim as against the petitioner. In the said suit an application was filed by the petitioner herein under section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 stating that all the claims are covered by the terms of Arbitration in between the parties.3. In disposing of the interlocutory application as well as the application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, a Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court was pleased to appoint Justice Sudhamoy Basu, a retired Judge of this court to enter upon the reference in respect of all matters In controversy in this suit including t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »