Kolkata Court March 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.
Timken India Limited Vs. Asstt. Commr. of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(69)ECC778,2000(117)ELT544(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. According to the writ petitioner, the goods were imported in this country only for the purpose of exhibition upon furnishing bank guarantee and therefore in accordance with the provisions as laid down in Section 74 of the Customs Act they will be exempted 98% of such duty as provided therein. The Authority concerned cannot prceed on the basis of any marginal note in view of the Single Bench decision of this Court in : 1992(59)ELT522(Cal) (Texmaco Limited v. Union of India). However, I have come to know from the learned Counsel appearing for the Authority that bank has already given an information in respect of encashment of bank guarantee but they will not take any step till the disposal of the stay application. 2. The petitioner contended that immediately after passing of the order an appeal was preferred and a stay application was made by the petitioner and the bank guarantee is valid till July 2000, therefore no order can be passed at this stage in respect of...
M/S. Suman Motor Ltd. Vs. Escots Financial Services Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT371(HC),[2001]106CompCas432(Cal)
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This is an application under section 482 or the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the case No. C/2197/96 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The opposite party was admittedly the financier of the revision-petitioner as a reason whereof there was a lease agreement dated 10.1.96 between the parties whereby the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 7,41,709 per quarter as rental from the total amount of Rs. 1.48,34.180. From time to time the petitioner had claimed to have paid the amount but the cheque bearing No. 528582 dated 8th October, 1996 was bounced and immediately thereafter the opposite party sent a notice to the petitioner informing such dishonour of cheque. Even then, when no payment was made the opposite party had filed a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with section 141. From time to time although summons was sent to the petitioner but when the...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Tribeni Tissues Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)77ITD67(Kol.)
1. The department has filed this appeal against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 1989-90 dated 6th August, 1992 on the following ground :-- "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VI, Calcutta erred in holding that the Assessing Officer wrongly in taxing the sum of Rs. 61,75,888 under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as there was no finality in respect of the liability of the purchase tax." 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, purchase tax was levied on the assessee. The assessee did not accept the levy but paid the amount under protest. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. The assessee filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal held by its order dated 20th September, 1988 that no purchase tax was payable by the assessee. However, the Sales Tax Departme...
Bijoy Bhusan Alias Mihir Roy Chowdhury Vs. Smt. Ratna Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)ALD(Cri)553,(2001)2CALLT386(HC),I(2001)DMC70
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 6.11.99 whereby the revision-petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 4000/- as maintenance towards the opposite party.2. The essential facts leading to this revisional application is as follows:3. The revision-petitioner married the opposite party on 2nd July, 1995 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After such lawful marriage both the parties remained as husband and wife for some time. Thereafter there was a family dissension, as a result of which the private respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home and lived with her parents. Since she did not have sufficient means to maintain herself, she filed an application under section 125 Cr.PC against the present revision-petitioner and, inter alia, prayed for payment of Interim maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Howrah was, however, inclined to allow the prayer of the private respondent by directing the petitioner to pay...
Shakila Parveen Vs. Haider Ali Alias Haider
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT413(HC),I(2001)DMC691
B. Panigrahi, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the 5th Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah in a proceeding under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in M-37/93. The opposite party No. 1 was the husband of the revision-petitioner and their marriage was solemnised on 5th of May. 1991 as per Muslim rites and customs against Den Mehr amount of Rs. 2500. The said Marriage was entered into Nikah Nama in the office of the Muslim Marriage Registrar and Kazi.2. The petitioner has claimed to have given some dowry at the time of their marriage. Sometimes after marriage their matrimonial life did not end peacefully and, therefore, the petitioner, however, was forced to leave the private respondent's house in February. 1993. Thereafter a case was registered under section 498A and 406 IPC. At the moment the case under section 498A is still pending. The revision-petitioner filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 18...
Manas Sarkar and ors. Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Cal251
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. There are 5 writ petitions altogether. All the 5 writ petitions are meant for the purpose of granting relief in favour of the petitioners in the nature of regularisation of their candidature as students of the concerned law college under the University of Calcutta. Out of the 5 writ petitions. 3 writ petitions have been made in the Original Side jurisdiction of the High Court when other 2 writ petitions are made in the Appellate Side jurisdiction of the High Court. Although not similar, but common cause of action is involved in respect of all the 5 writ petitions.2. Out of the 5 writ petitions W.P. No. 1957 of 1999, (Ms. Sreemoyee Das v. State of West Bengal) is made contending that the petitioner was under the impression that her Roll Number is 73 and paid all the tuition fees etc. on the basis of such impression. Subsequently, she came to know from the college authority before depositing the requisite fee for examination that her actual Roll Number is 75. Ther...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tribeni Tissues Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: [2000]77ITD67(Cal)
ORDERShri B.R. Mittal, J.M.The department has filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1989-90 dated 6-8-1992 on the following ground:-'That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-VI, Calcutta erred in holding that the assessing officer wrongly in taxing the sum of Rs. 61,75,888 under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as there was no finality in respect of the liability of the purchase tax.'2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, purchase tax was levied on the assessee. The assessee did not accept the levy but paid the amount under protest. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. The assessee filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal held by its order dated 20-9-1988 that no purchase tax was payable by the assessee. However, the Sales Tax Department did no...
Mukherjee Estate (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Cal)470,[2000]244ITR1(Cal)
1. On a reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal was justified in holding' that the sum of Rs. 51,864 received bythe assessee from letting out of floor space and wall space on the roofs of the house properties to advertising agencies for putting up hoardings for display of advertisements was income assessable under the head 'Other sources' and not under the head 'Income from house property' (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the hoardings which are placed on the roofs of the building let out by the assessee to various companies for display of their respective advertisements is vitiated by reason of ignoring important and relevant evidence produced at the time of the hearing before the income-tax authorities and/or on record (3) Whether the finding of the Tri...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Bharati C. Kothari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR352(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question set out at page 2 of the application, has been referred by the Tribunal for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54(1) since the agreement of purchase was made within one year from the date of sale and since substantial parts of instalments were paid within two years from the date of sale and thereby treating the date of agreement as the date of purchase ?'2. The assessee had sold her flat at Rs. 1,40,000 on April 30, 1981. The asses-see thereupon entered into an agreement on April 29, 1982, for purchase of ownership flat from Akash Deep Corporation for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000. As per the agreement, she had to pay Rs. 10,000 on or before the execution of the agreement and the balance amount she has to pay as under :Date of paymentA...
Jyoti Bhusan Bose and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2000
Reported in: (2000)2CALLT243(HC),2000(1)CHN768
R.K. Mitra, J. 1. This applicant had been made by the petitioners in an endeavour to restrain the Calcutta Municipal Corporation from fllling-up of a 'pond and/or swamp' commonly known as 'Rani Kuthlr Pukur' situate in South Calcutta. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation to which I shall refer in this Judgment as 'the corporation', for the sake of brevity, had according to the petitioners commenced the work of fllling-up the swamp and was continuing to do so, in wilful illegal and deliberate violation of the provisions contained in the West Bengal Town & Country (Planning and Development) Act 1979, the West Bengal Fisheries (Acquisition and Requisition) Act 1965, Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the Environment (Protections) Act 1986, and the rules framed under each of the above enactments. The first two Acts mentioned above, shall hereafter be referred to as The Planning Act 1979 and The Fisheries Act 1965 respectively. It had been strongly alleged by the petitioners, that the Corporation had...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »