Kolkata Court February 2000 Judgments

Ballygunge Siksha Samity and ors. Vs. Ms. Susmita Basu and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)2CALLT484(HC),2000(1)CHN635

A. Kabir, J.1. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in this appeal were among 21 members of the leaching staff of an educational Institution known as Ballygunge Siksha Sadan' run by the appellant No.1 Society at 81A, Garlahat Road, Calcutta-700017, who had filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.4139 of 1992, Inter alia, praying for Issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the authorities of the school to properly fix the salaries of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school and to remove all anomalis in the scales of pay as recommended by the Third Pay Commission and as extended to other Government aided D.A. getting schools. Out of the 31 writ petitioners some retired from service during the pendency of the writ petition and some chose to withdraw from the writ petition leaving the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein to continue with the same. 2. The case as made out in the writ petition is that Ballygunge Siksha Sadan was established in 1950 as a High School and was granted recogniti...

Kalimur Rahaman Vs. the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court: Kolkata

The Court 1. by consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list.A charge-sheet vide a Memorandum dated 27th March 1997 was Issued against the appellant under the signature of the Municipal Commissioner. Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Calcutta. Three articles of charges form the substratum of the charge-sheet. The proceedings are stated to have been held thereafter culminating in the passing of the final order on 17th August 1999. Even though the final order was conveyed to the appellant under the signature and through a forwarding letter of theJoint Municipal Commissioner, the order itself was passed by the Municipal Commissioner. The appellant was awarded certain punishments including his reversion to the post of Junior Assistant. The appellant challenged the aforesaid punishment order by filing a writ Application in this Court. Against the refusal to pass any interim order by the learned single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under clause 15 of t...

Mahadev Dhar and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)2CALLT264(HC)

S.N. Bhattacharjee. J.1. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have Impugned the judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum, Murshidabad dated 18.3.99 passed in Cons. Prot. case No. Ex 70/98/187/97 whereby the earlier order dated 30.4.98 in CDF Case No. 187 of 1997 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Murshidabad was re-called.2. The petitioners herein filed an application before the District Consumer Forum, Murshidabad alleging deficiency of service rendered by the Postal Authorities (respondent No. 3 herein) which withheld the amounts under MIS Account No. 6736834 in respect of Rs. 54,000/- and another MIS Account No. 6736835 in respect of Rs. 48,000/- opened by Satyanarayan Dhar since deceased although the petitioners being brothers of the deceased were recorded as nominees in respect of the said two accounts. The postal respondent entered into appearance and explained that the payment was not made to the petitioners in view of t...

Joseph Jeffery Soker Afcon Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)3CALLT28(HC)

1. Basically this is a suit for decree on account of ejectment as against the defendant in respect of the portion of the suit premises described In Schedule--'A' hereto along with other reliefs which are connected with the prime relief.2. It appears that originally the suit was appearing In the Court of appropriate Assistant District Judge, Asansol being Title Ejectment Suit No. 100 of 1992 which was subsequently transferred to this Court. A defect arose in respect of hearing of the suit since from the record it was appearing that the suit was dismissed before the same Court from which it was transferred to this Court. Subsequently, several orders were passed but no where the formality of regularisation of the suit by recalling the order passed earlier was made. As a result whereof in spite of hearing the spit on merit this Court was not pleased to pass a decree but directed the matter to appear under the heading 'to be mentioned' for the purpose of necessary clarification. However, up...

National Project Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Aroma Universal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT195(HC),2001(2)CHN149

P.K. Chattopadhyay, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th May. 1998 passed by the learned single judge while deciding the application filed by the appellant herelnunder sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act challenging the award made and published by the learned Arbitrator on 13th May, 1997.2. Learned single Judge dismissed the application for setting aside the award filed by the appellant herein and passed a decree in terms of the award with an amendment that Interest should be charged at the rate of 12% Instead of 18% as was directed by the learned Arbitrator.3. The appellant has challenged the said judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in the present appeal on the grounds that there was delay in preferring the claim and accordingly. Arbitrator should have rejected the claim on the ground of limitation and secondly, the Arbitrator exceeded his Jurisdiction and made an award which is a nullity. According to the appellant, arbitrato...

Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)77ITD198(Kol.)

1. Only issue in this appeal filed by the assesses relates to whether for the purpose of computation of the deduction to be allowed to the assessee on export activities in accordance with the provisions of section 80HHC(3), the "total turnover of the business" carried on by the assessee should include the two items of subsidy on export (Rs. 10,29,736) and miscellaneous income (Rs. 56,65,969). The miscellaneous income again consists of the following different items :-- In the assessment, the Assessing Officer has considered the above-mentioned two items to be includible within total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee. His action has been upheld by the CIT(A).2. At the stage of hearing of the appeal filed by the assessee before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has come up with a written submission. He argues that the deduction envisaged under section 80HHC(3)(b) is required to be computed as below- Export turnover Profits & gains of business X __________________...

Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]77ITD198(Cal)

ORDERS. Bandyopadhyay, A.M. :Only issue in this appeal filed by the assessee relates to whether for the purpose of computation of the deduction to be allowed to the assessee on export activities in accordance with the provisions of section 80HHC(3), the 'total turnover of the business' carried on by the assessee should include the two items of subsidy on export (Rs. 10,29,736) and miscellaneous income (Rs. 56,65,969). The miscellaneous income again consists of the following different items :Rs.Rs.Sundry Sales4,18,364 Offal Sales12,88,772 (Barley Husk) Rent Recoveries12,871 17,20,007Misc. Receipts : Sale of Rep licence42,041 Cash Discount from Metal Box3,59,650 Sale of Raw Materials4,155 Sale of By Products2,98,171 Octroi Recoveries4,81,768 Claims Received1,42,086 Drawback received16,47,091 Provision written back9,63,439 Other Sundries7,561 39,45,962 56,65,969In the assessment, the assessing officer has considered the abovementioned two items to be includible within total turnover of th...

Harendra Nath Ghosh and ors. Vs. Subodh Kumar Ghosh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)2CALLT254(HC),2000(1)CHN688

B. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This second appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for partition and is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 3, 1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 654 of 1982 thereby affirming those dated May 29, 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 32 of 1980 renumbered as Title Suit. No. 23 of 1982.2. The appellant herein filed the aforesaid suit for partition against respondent No. 1, his younger brother after making State of West Bengal as a pro-forma defendant. The subject matter of the suit was piece and parcel of land measuring 2 1/2 kottahs together with a two storied pucca building and other kuttcha and pucca structures standing thereon being Plot No. E/251(Local No. 1/29), Vivek Nagar Colony, Calcutta. The case made out by the appellant in the plaint was that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were refugees from East Pakistan and the land...

John Paterson and Co. (India) Limited Vs. Tri-star Soya Products Limit ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]104CompCas596(Cal),(2000)3CompLJ15(Cal)

Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. By consent of parties we have heard the appeal on the basis of papers included in the petition by hearing the same in the day's list.2. This appeal is directed against an order admitting the winding up petition. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties.3. Mr. Sanjib Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant, has contended that the statutory notice was not properly served and as such, the winding up petition is not maintainable. Secondly, he has contended that affidavit evidence is not sufficient. Lastly, he has submitted that there is no basis for fixing the quantum of interest as made by the learned judge.4. So far as the first submission of Mr. Banerjee is concerned, it appears that the letter is dated March 2, 1996. In fact, although the petitioner has made such submission, he has not mentioned when he received the letter of statutory notice. Since there is no denial of the receipt of the letter and what is denied is the ...

Alok Kumar Ghosh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. The grievance of the applicant in this case is that when the TA bearing No. 2 of 1993 (CR 10208-W/1984) filed by the applicant challenging the validity of the proposed order of termination of his service issued 12.7.84 by the respondents is pending for adjudication, the respondents promoted his junior officer, respondent No. 4 to higher posts ignoring him. The Tribunal set aside the said order dated 12.7.84 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for the post of Junior Draftsman in the office of the respondents in accordance with the instruction of the Railway Board circular dated 25.6.85. Despite this fact, his claim for promotion prior to the respondent No. 4 has been denied by the respondents vide letter dated 17.9.93 (Annexure 'A/9'). Hence he filed this case.2. The case of the applicant, in short, is that the applicant was appointed as a casual Tracer in the office of the Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Danapur in the year 197...