Kolkata Court November 2000 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.
Lakshmi Kanta Kahar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT324(HC),2000(2)CHN880
ORDERThe aforesaid judgment delivered in writ petition being W.P. No. 13830(W) 1998 will also govern this writ petition as the facts and the points of law are similar. Accordingly, this writ petition also fails and the same is dismissed.In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will' be, however, no order as to costs.Let a xerox certified copy of this order alongwith the judgment delivered in W.P. No. 13830 (W) of 1998 be made available to the respective parties, if applied for, on urgent basis....
NitIn Das and Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT96(HC)
Mahemmad Habeeb Shams Ansari, J.1. As the matters raised identical question and similar relief has been prayed for, the two writ applications have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The petitioner, Nitin Das seeks a direction commanding the respondent No. 4 to register the Deed of Transfer in respect of plot No. B-10/157 at Kalyani township at Kalyani, Nadia.W.P. No. 19006(W) of 2000.The petitioner, Roma Das seeks a direction commanding the respondent No. 4 to register the Deed of Transfer in respect of plot No. B-9/268 at Kalyani township at Kalyani, Nadia.2. The land in the plots referred to supra, is said to be held by the transferor and their predecessor-in-interest under a lease from the Government. In terms of the lease, transferor and transferee applied for consent and the period for consideration thereof having elapsed, there is no impediment for registration of the said transfer in favour of the petitioner, it is contended.3. Th...
Chandi Charan Mahato Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT405(HC)
Acts/Rules/Orders:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397, 401 and 482;Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 302 and 380JUDGEMENT R.K. Mazumder, J.1. The instant Criminal revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the petitioner Shri Chandicharan Mahato and this is for quashing the investigational proceeding arising out of Jhalda P.S. Case No, 102/96 dated 3.9.96 under sections 302/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code (G.R. Case No.1095/96) now pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Purulia.2. The case of the petitioner was in brief that on 3,9.96 a complaint was lodged against him with the Officer-in-Charge, Jhalda P.S., Purulia by the de facto complainant-informant Shri Monojitananda Avadhut to the effect that on 2.9.96 at about 9 P.M. when he was going from Singhghare to Metala in Purulia and reached near the Ananda Marg School, he saw that some persons were dragging the victim Shri Jyotirindra Avadhut...
Employer in Relation to the Management of Calcutta Telephones and anr. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR979],(2001)IILLJ165Cal
ORDERBhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. The employer has come up with the instant writ application challenging an award dated September 19, 1995 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta.2. The following disputes were referred to the Tribunal for adjudication:'Whether the action of the Management of Calcutta Telephones, Department of Telecommunication, Taher Mansion, 8, Bentinck Street, Calcutta-1 in terminating the services of Sri Rajat Chatterjee, casual workman with effect from January 1, 1989 is legal, proper and justified?If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?'3. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the workman alone led evidence but the employer did not come forward to controvert the evidence adduced on behalf of the employee.4. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal below on consideration of the materials on record, arrived at a conclusion that for the entire year 1988, the employee had worked for 260 days and as such, was entitled to the benefit und...
Raja Ram Mohan Roy Children's Academy Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2000
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT119(HC)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. In this petition the petitioners have challenged the taking over of management of a school, being the petitioner No. 1 in this writ petition, by the Municipal Authorities, on various grounds mentioned hereafter. Initially the writ petition was dismissed and an appeal having been preferred, the matter has since been remitted for trial by the learned single Judge after having passed certain interim orders while formulating the area of the question of law to be examined. On the basis whereof, it appeared to the appeal Court, that there was a prima facie question to be gone into. 2. The Municipality had purported to claim that the land on which the school is situated, is a vested land and belong to the Municipality and as such the Municipality has a right to take-over the said school. It Is further alleged on behalf of the Municipality that the school was being mismanaged by a few of the members of an unregistered association who are managing the school. The funds of...
Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Vs. B.K. Roy Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR245(Cal)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned single judge whereby the learned single judge, by his order dated August 5, 1993 (see : [1995]211ITR500(Cal) ), has quashed the show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been preferred.2. It is not necessary to go into the detailed facts. Suffice it to say, a question of law has arisen as to whether the money which has been received by the assessee for surrendering his tenancy right can be considered to be capital gains or not ?3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 21,30,000 from Shaw Wallace Company as compensation on surrendering his monthly tenancy. The said tenancy was a capital asset of the assessee and no cost was incurred for its acquisition. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that the said sum could not be a...
Texmaco Ltd. Vs. Appellate Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ567Cal
Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated May 17, 2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein questioning an order passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act) was dismissed. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent No. 3 herein was an employee of Oriental Machinery and Civil Construction Limited (hereinafter referred to as OMCC). The said establishment having regard to certain labour disputes declared a lock-out in October, 1978. A closure was declared in relation to the said industry with effect from January 1, 1979. Negotiations were held by and between the management of the said OMCC and the appellant herein at the instance of the West Bengal for transfer of the said industry, pursuant t...
Commissioner of Income Tax and ors. Vs. B.K. Roy (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Cal)500
ORDERBy the CourtThis appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge, by his order dated 5-8-1993 (reported as B.K. Roy (P) Ltd. v. CIT : [1995]211ITR500(Cal) , has quashed the show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by that order, the present appeal has been preferred.2. It is not necessary to go into the detail facts. Suffice it to say, a question of law has arisen as to whether the money which has been received by the assessee for surrendering his tenancy right can be considered to be capital gains or not 3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 21,20,000 from Shaw Wallace Company as compensation on surrendering his monthly tenancy. The said tenancy was capital asset of the assessee and no cost was incurred for its acquisition. In the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer held that the said sum...
Gouranga Lal Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR737(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. In this writ petition in spite of rule being served no affidavit-in-opposition has been fild to contest this application. Mr. Som, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, informs the court that the relevant file relating to this case is not traceable surprisingly. So no affidavit-in-opposition could be or at this stage can be filed. So I have no option but to proceed on the basis that the allegations contained in the writ petition are true and correct since no opposition has been filed.2. The brief facts of this case are as follows :Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are partnership firms. Both at the relevant point of time were registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and also under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of petitioner No. 1 while petitioner No. 4 is one of the partners of petitioner No. 3. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are assessees in their capacities as firms so also the respective partners are indi...
Asstt. Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-2000
Reported in: 2002(141)ELT330(Cal)
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J. 1. This is anappeal directed against the order dated 13th March, 1993 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 21st April, 1992 and notices dated 17th February, 1992 and 31st March, 1992. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the respondent shall allow exemption benefit to the petitioner under Notification No. 65/87-C.E. in respect of polythene liner jute bags manufactured by the petitioner.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the petition is a manufacturer of jute bags. This jute bags are classified under sub-heading 6301.00 of Chapter 63, Section XI to the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Subheading 6301.00 relates to textile articles not elsewhere specified including blankets (other than wool), tarpaulins, tents, sails for boats, The prescribed rate of duty against the sub-heading is 12% ad va...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »