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.
Shree Azad Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Duburdi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]123STC13(Cal)
1. A short but an interesting question as regards interpretation of the provisions of Section 70 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter called and for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act') vis-a-vis Rule 212 of the said Rules for consideration of this case.2. Before however embarking on the said question we may notice the salient facts. The petitioner is a transporter. Some goods while being transported intercepted by the Commercial Tax Officer, Duburdih Check-post.3. Such interception took place on September 5, 2000. While the vehicle was on its way to Assansol it was taken back to the check-post and detained for thorough checking in terms of Section 69 of the said Act. Nobody had appeared till September 12, 2000. Inspection was made on each day of detention but the driver's cabin was found under lock and key. No person was present in whose presence checking could be made. Relying on or on the basis of Rule 212(10), the goods were seized on September 13, 2000...
Shantiniketan Society and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT231(HC),2001(1)CHN259
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This writ application arises out of a judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2000 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the 'said Tribunal') in T.A. 761 of 2000 arising out of W.P. No. 8247 (W) of 1999.2. The petitioners herein are transferees of two plots being portion of Plot No. 356 and plot No. 358 situate in Mouza Kalikapur. The basic fact of matter is not much in dispute.3. In the revisional survey settlement records of rights Plot No. 356 was recorded as Beel, whereas Plot No. 358 was recorded as Beel Machchas. The original owner of the said land was one Bejoy Krishna Roy, who died on 3.11.1960. The legislature of the State of West Bengal enacted West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') to provide for the State acquisition of estates, of rights of intermediaries therein and of certain rights of raiyats and under-raiyats and of the rights of certa...
Smt. Nazban Nissa Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT442(HC)
ORDERD.P. Sengupta, J.1. The present revlslonal application is directed against an order dated 22.7.93 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalpalguri In Mtsc. Appeal No. 1/93 affirming the order of confiscation of vehicle No. WMQ 2311 passed by the Authorised Officer, Jalpaiguri by order dated 25.11.92 in Forest Case No. 4637/15-217.2. The present petitioner, who is the registered owner of the truck, was informed that her truck was seized by the officer-in-charge of Teesta Check Post on the allegation of carrying 8 pieces of Sawan Timber itlegaly the value of which was estimated to be around Rs. 20,000/-. She was further informed that her driver, who was entrusted to deliver 298 packets of Carbon dust which was loaded at Gauhatl and to be delivered at Calcutta, had loaded the said timber in the truck to carry the same to Kishanganj. The driver and his associates were arrested and were subsequently released on bail.3. Having received the Information about the seizure of her...
Monindra Nath Das Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT471(HC)
ORDERP.K. Ray, J.1. Insert writ application is directed challenging the order dated 23rd June, 2000 passed by West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, whereby and whereunder direction was given to the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to hold enquiry under section 14T(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as said Act, in the manner laid down in the said provision and dispose of in accordance with law. It was further directed by the impugned order that on conclusion of the enquiry under section 14T(5) of the said Act, the proceeding under section 14T(3) of the said Act would be decided and concluded.2, This writ application has been filed with the following prayers :-'A. A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondents, their men, agents and subordinates why the order dated 23.6.2000 in O.A. No. 691 of 2000 (LRTT) passed by Hon'ble Mr. K.L. Mukhopadhaya, Administrative Member and Hon'ble Mr. K.J. Majumder, Judicial Member, co...
Tata Tea Ltd. Vs. Fazlur Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]104CompCas718(Cal)
1. In spite of notice nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party.2. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 20-12-1999, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, in Case No. C-502 of 1999 thereby rejecting the application of the present petitioner praying for a direction upon the accused to vacate the bungalow which is the property of the petitioner and which the accused opposite party is illegally and wrongfully withholding after the termination of service.3. The present petitioner filed a petition of complaint against the accused opposite party under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') inthe court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, on 20-2-1999. The allegation made in the petition of complaint is that Tata Tea Ltd. is a public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act. The company appointed the accused opposite party as an assistant manager and provided him wi...
israil Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT70(HC)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. Mr. Bari has filed an application for addition of party. The application is allowed. The applicant be added as respondent in this writ petition.2. After the application for addition of party is allowed, by consent of the parties this matter is taken up for hearing. This matter is treated as on day's list for hearing. All the learned counsel for the respective parties had addressed the Court at length.3. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken 3 points assailing the order passed by the appellate authority in the proceeding under Section 213A of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 declaring the petitioner disqualified.4. The first point was that Md. Habibulla claiming to be the leader of the elected member of the political party was never elected as leader. No meeting was ever held neither any information was given to the prescribed authority within 15 days from the date of such election. Alternatively, he contended that even if it is assum...
Bhabaneswar Singh Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: [2001]122STC494(Cal)
1. This application is directed against an order dated July 14, 2000 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. RN-168 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It placed an order with Eastern Trading Company, Mangalore, for 10,050 kgs., of betelnut packed in 134 bags. The said consignment was sent through Assam Carriers (P) Ltd. In the check-post waybills and other documents accompanying the consignment were verified. However at Andul a purported inspection was made and on the ground that the waybill is under-invoiced, the goods were seized. Questioning the legality of such seizure the application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal did not go into the merits of the matter but directed as under :'At this stage we ar...
Makali Engg. Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dalhousie Properties Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN419
1. Two questions of law seemingly of some importance arise for our consideration in this appeal, which are :1) Whether the deed of lease for a fixed period shall take effect from the date of execution thereof or anterior thereto for any purpose whatsoever?2) Whether an application for amendment of the written statement explaining or resiling from an admission made in the original written statement can be allowed?2. The basic fact, of the matter is not in dispute.3. The defendant is the appellant and tenant under the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for eviction on or about 26.4.1989 purported to be in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (hereinafter called and referred to, for the sake of brevity, as 'the said Act') on the ground of: (1) default, (2) subletting of the premises without the consent of the landlord, and (3) unauthorised construction of the mezzanine floor.4. In the plaint, the plaintiff described the defendant as a mo...
B.N. Nobis and Co. Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Cal)153
ORDERPramod Kumar, A.M.The assessee has moved these stay petitions, under rule 35A of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, to seek stay on collection/recovery of income-tax demand of Rs. 10,24,699 and Rs. 94,75,718, created by order under section 154 read with section 143(1)(a) and under section 143(3) read with section 148, respectively, for the assessment year 1993-94. The aforesaid demands were created on account of assessing officers recomputation of allowable deduction under section 80HHC. On assessees appeal against this recomputation, the Commissioner (Appeals), instead of giving any relief to the assessee and instead of even examining merits of the recomputation, declined the claim for deduction under section 80HHC per se on the ground that chartered accountants certificate on Form No. 10CCAC was an invalid certificate. The admitted defect in the chartered accountants certificate was that Annexure A to the aforesaid certificate was on a performa which ceased to be effective from...
Supratik Ghosh and anr. Vs. Pasari Housing Development (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT341(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal. They are aggrieved by an order dated 31.7.2000 passed by Sri S.K. Bhadra, the learned Additional District Judge, VIIth Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 132 of 1999, whereby and whereunder an application filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein in exercise of his power conferred upon him under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of bravity as 'the said Act') was allowed.2. The facts of the matter are as follows :--On or about 3.9.1993, the appellants as owners of the property being premises No. 16A, Curusaday Road. Calcutta, entered into a development agreemnt for the purpose of constructing a multi-storeyed complex with the plaintiff-respondent. A power of attorney to the Director of the respondent company was also executed by the appellants herein and possession of the said premises was also handedover. Three tenants were and still are occupying a p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›