Kolkata Court December 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.
Prabir Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Cal)530
K.J. Sengupta, J.:During pendency of the writ petition further development admittedly had taken place. The assessment order in relation to which the amount in question was recovered from the joint account, has been set aside by the concerned appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner (Appeals) concerned. Therefore, according to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) this amount has become refundable but the department has taken this matter before the Tribunal and the appeal before the Tribunal is pending. Under such circumstances I observe that since initially the order of assessment was set aside, therefore, the recovery proceeding under section 226(3) had become infructuous for the time being subject to decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner for the time being should not be deprived of getting back his money. It appears to me this money was realised in relation to the alleged dues of the writ petitioner from the joint account and without observing other formalitie...
Anita Mukherjee Vs. Union Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Cal)531
K.J. Sengupta, J.In view of the order passed by me in the previous writ petition being No. W.P. 6819(W)/99 (reported as Prabir Kumar Mukherjee v. Union Bank of India & Ors. (2001) 21 DTC 591 (Cal-HC). I am of the view that recovery of the amount in this matter under section 226(3) has become unwarranted under the law. Admittedly there is no due against the writ petitioner. On account of the alleged dues of her husband the amount in question in this writ petition has been withdrawn from the joint account. I hold that the steps taken by the respondents in this matter is not justified under the law. Accordingly, I direct the respondent authority to refund a sum of Rs. 15,498 together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum which shall be calculated from the date of withdrawal. However, the aforesaid amount after receipt shall be kept in a short-term fixed deposit not less than the period of six months. The aforesaid fixed deposit shall not be encashed before three months from d...
Samsher Dorji Vs. Chammadadi Dorji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT431(HC)
G.C. Gupta, J.1. This Second Appeal is. at the Instance of the defendants, directed against a decree of reversal passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiffs is that by a deed of conveyance dated 19-4-1938 one Golam Sopan Dorjl purchased the disputed land from one Ashiruddln Sk. Upon the death of the said Golam Sopan Dorjl the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants No. 5 to 7 Inherited the said land and have been continuing in possession thereof. It is alleged that due to a mistake the disputed land was recorded in the name of one Osman Dorjl Instead of the said Golam Sopan Dorjl In the R.S. Record of right. It Is further alleged that the said R.S. Record Is baseless; Osman Dorji did never have any right title Interest or possession In respect of the disputed land. Further case of the plaintiff Is that taking advantage of the aforesaid incorrect recording the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 on 8-4-1977 threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs. The def...
Bata India Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR491(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated August 10, 1988, issued under Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby assessment order dated June 20, 1984, under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 1982-83 is sought to be amended as there is a mistake apparent from the records within the meaning of Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The object behind the notice is to enhance the assessment for increasing the liability. The nature of the mistake proposed to be rectified has been given that a sum ofRs. 12,69,760 being the amount paid to the Bata Workmen Sickness Benefit Society was wrongly allowed.2. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, contends that the notice under the aforesaid section is bad in law as the assessment order in the name of rectification of the mistake cannot be reopened. The scope and purview of Section 154/155 is very limited and this can only be exercised where ...
Air India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR94],(2002)IVLLJ266Cal
ORDERB. Bhattacharya, J.1. In this writ application an employer has challenged an order dated May 18, 1999 issued by the appropriate Government thereby referring a dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in terms of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as 'the said Act').2. There is no dispute that the private-respondent/employee was dismissed from service on November 3, 1981 during the pendency of an industrial dispute as a result, such dismissal required post approval in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act. Accordingly, the employer filed appropriate application before the National Tribunal seeking approval for such dismissal. The said proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act was pending till November 1, 1999 when ultimately, the National Tribunal has approved such dismissal.3. During the pendency of the proceeding before the National Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the said Act, the private-respondent approached the Conci...
Kartick Chandra Pradhan and ors. Vs. the State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3825
ORDERDebi Prasad Sengupta, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 15-3-2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. LXXXIV/May, 1997 arising out of Sutahata P.S. Case No. 76/92 dated 8-7-1992 under Section 498A/304B/306 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The present petitioners were made accused in the aforesaid case which was registered with Sutahata Police Station on the basis of a complaint lodge by one Madan Mohan Santra. In the First Information Report it was alleged that the daughter of the de facto complainant was given in marriage with the present petitioner No. 1. At the time of marriage Rs. 15,000/- was given as dowry by the de facto complainant, but they demanded Rs. 7,000/- more, out of which Rs. 2,000/- was given to the petitioners and Rs. 5,000/- was assured to the paid later on. For non-payment of said Rs. 5,000/- in time victim Shibani (daughter of the de facto complainant) was subjected to ...
Bata India Ltd. Vs. Iac and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Cal)14
Sengupta, J. :In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 10-8-1988, issued under sections 154/155 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereby assessment order dated 20-6-1984, under section 143(2) for the assessment year 1982-83 sought to be amended as there is a mistake apparent from the records within the meaning of sections 154/155 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Object behind notice is to enhance the assessment for increasing liability. The nature of the mistake proposed to be rectified has been given that a sum of Rs. 12,69,760 being the amount paid to Bata Workmen Sickness Benefit Society was wrongly allowed.2. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, contends that notice under the aforesaid section is bad in law as the assessment order in the name of rectification of the mistake cannot be reopened. The scope and purview of sections 154/155 is very limited and this can only be exercised where the mistake is apparent on the face of the r...
Sri Shyamananda Jha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT205(HC),2001(1)CHN424
ORDERP.K. Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner herein was initially engaged on casual basis in the employment of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education and subsequently he was absorbed on permanent basis as Lower Division Clerk. It has been alleged by the respondent Council that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and on behalf of the respondent it has also been alleged that though the petitioner was repeatedly warned against unauthorised absence and was requested not to abstained from duty but the petitioner ignored the said lawful direction/instruction of the Council and again unauthorisely and irregularly absented himself from duty for a total period of 240 days between November, 1989 and October, 1990 without any prior leave of absence from the Council. 2. By Memo. No EST/520/91/90 dated 9.11.90, petitioner was served with a charge sheet by the President of the Council for unauthorisely and irregularly absenting himself from duty. It appears from the said charge sheet t...
Sk. AllauddIn Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT514(HC),[2001(90)FLR134]
G.C. De, J.1. In this case the petitioner has challenged the Order of Sentence dated 09.03.1998 passed by the Summary Court Martial imposing a rigorous imprisonment for two months and also dismissal from service.2. The petitioner, a Sepoy (No. 2992741) of D/Company, 15th Rajput Battalion was charge-sheeted on 4.3.98. The charge-sheet is reproduced below ;-CHARGE SHEET The accused No. 2992741 X Sep S K Allauddin. 15th Battalion The Rajput Regiment is charged with :-First Charge WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OVERSTAYING LEAVEArmy Act GRANTED TO HIMSection 39(b) In that he. At Calcutta, having been granted leave of absence from 09 Dec 97 to 22 Dec 97 to proceed to his home, failed without sufficient cause, to rejoin unit on 23 Dec 97 on expiry of the said leave, till he rejoined unit on 09 Feb 98 at 12 00 hours at his own accord.Second Charge DESERTING THE SERVICEArmy ActSection 38(1) in that he, At Calcutta, on 10 Feb 98 absented himself from 15th Battalion The Rajput Regiment, until apprehen...
Muktaram Panja Vs. Nitarendu Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT530(HC)
G.C. De, J.1. This hearing arose out of a petition filed by the respondent/ judgment-debtor praying for recalling of the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2000 passed by this Court in two Second Appeals No. 314 of 1999 and 220 of 1998 which were heard analogously.2. It is alleged in the petition that notices of both the appeals were not served on the present petitioner who figures as respondent No. 2 in SecondAppeal No. 220 of 1998 and respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal No. 314 of 1999. It is also alleged that by practising fraud upon the Court both the appeals were listed for final hearing.3. The appellant in both the appeals and the respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal No. 220 of 1998 and the respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No. 314 of 1999 appeared and contested the hearing after filing separate Affidavit-in-Opposition pointing out that notice were duly served in accordance with law.4. Subsequently Affidavit-in-Reply and other supplementary affidavits were also filed in support of the res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »