Kolkata Court March 2000 Judgments

Gita Adhikary and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)2CALLT261(HC)

A. Talukdar, J.1. An Order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani in connection with G.R. Case No. 140 of 1999 (arising out of Chakdaha Police Station Case No.42 dated 30.4.99) on 07.10.99 has prompted the petitioners to come up before this Court invoking Its jurisdiction under sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the said Order on the premises that the materials as emerging from the Police Papers do not make out any case under section 328 of the Indian Penal Code that there are serious discrepancies in the statements with regard to the date of the occurance and also with regard to the description of the poison allegedly administered.2. Shri Islam appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that there are no materials in the Police Papers which would make out a case of section 328 against the Petitioners and the Order of Commitment passed by the learned Magistrate should be set aside. He further submit...

Smt. Rukmini Devi Todi and anr. Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)3CALLT158(HC)

P. K. Sen, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of two respondents in a winding up proceeding and is directed against an order of a Company Judge by which the learned Company Judge allowed a prayer made by the person who claims to have purchased a property in a Court sale.2. The matter out of which this appeal has arisen is a Court sale held by the Court while disposing of company petition. The land belonging to Thakurdas Sureka Iron Foundry Limited (in Liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Company') was sold on 10.7.92 and M/s. Llca Private Limited who is respondent No.2 before this Court of appeal, and they paid the entire consideration money as fixed by the Court on 17.9.92. The sale was confirmed in favour of the said purchaser and the Official Liquidator was directed to hand over the possession of the land to the purchaser that is the present respondent No.2.3. On 6.8.92, the purchaser made an application for a direction on the Official Liquidator to give the purchaser...

Universal Cables Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]243ITR371(Cal)

Y.R. Meena, J.1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1$61, the Tribunal was directed to refer certain questions and in consequence of the direction, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion which are set out at pages 1, 2 and 3 of the application :'Question in R. A. No. 580(Cal) of 1995, assessment year 1984-85 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of entire premium of Rs. 10,00,000 payable on debenture in the computation of its total income in the year when the debentures are redeemed and not in the year of issue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the assessee-company even proportionate deduction on account of premium payable by the company ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that cash subs...

Ashoke Kr. Chandra Vs. Smt. Arpita Chandra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: II(2000)DMC675

Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 14.5.1996 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampore, Murshidabad in M.R. Case No. 262 of 1994 directing the petitioner-husband a Flight Engineer of Indian Air Force (since retired) to pay to the wife-opposite party and her son Annkush Chandra aged about 9 years now, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/-respectively per month towards maintenance from the date of the filing of the application by the wife-opposite party under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. It appears, that it has been alleged by the wife-opposite party in her application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. that she was married to the petitioner on 30.1.1986 according to Hindu rites and customs with sufficient amount of dowry and other presents on the occasion and a son was born of that wedlock. But after the birth of the son, the petitioner, a Flight Engineer of Indian Air Force at that time started torturing the opposite party ...

Sunil Bhattacharya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. The applicant in this case prays for a direction to the respondents that he is deemed to have been promoted from the Grade of Director (Geology) to the grade of Deputy Director General (Geology) with effect from 20.11.96 i.e. the date from when similar benefits were given to the selected officers under Annexure A/3. He also prayed that this retiral benefits has to be accordingly changed. The other reliefs claimed in this application are not of much importance.2. The applicant was selected by the Union Public Service Commission and joined the Geological Survey of India as Assistant Geologist on 1.10.63. He was selected for the post of Geologist (Jr.) in 1964. In September, 1971 he was promoted to the grade of Geologist (Sr.). In August, 1985 he was promoted to the Grade of Director (Geology). The applicant was due to retire on 31.12.96. (From the records it is seen that this OA was filed on 30.12.96).3. It is the case of the applicant that his next promotion is to the post of Deputy...

Smt. Bula Kundu Vs. Sri Nirmal Kumar Kundu and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)2CALLT221(HC),2000(1)CHN505

B. Bhattacharya. J. 1. This revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the Instance of an opposite party in a proceeding for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act ('Act') and is directed against order dated September 23, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore in Judicial Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 1994 thereby reversing order dated April 21, 1994 passed by the learned Munsif, Garhbeta in Judicial Misc. Case No. 22 of 1991.2. The opposite parties filed the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 22 of 1991 under section 8 of the Act for pre-emption of sale effected through a registered deed dated March 27, 1989 in favour of the present petitioner on the ground of adjoining ownership.3. The aforesaid application was contested by the present petitioner by filing written objection thereby contending, inter alia, that the opposite parties were merely co-sharers of adjoining holding but could not be said to be adjo...

Sri Sudip Ghosh Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT432(HC)

B. Panigrahi, J.1. This revision is directed against an order of taking cognizance against the petitioner under section 387/347/379/471/406/ 469/468/506 of Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas in Case No. C-347 of 1999.2. A short history of the prosecution case is that on 26.4.99 at about 11 A.M. the complainant and three other witnesses went to the company's office for performing their duties as directed. All on a sudden at about 1.30 p.m. the petitioner with other 30 to 40 miscreants entered into the board room with deadly weapons and asked them to put their signature in blank papers. Therefore, under such constant threat the defacto complainant and other witnesses were, however, forced to put their signature in blank papers. The petitioner and his associated started abuses in filthy language against the defacto complainant and other witnesses. The petitioner and others further assaulted them with list blows which cau...

Sundarmal Patesaria and Sons (Huf) and ors. Vs. Director of Income-tax ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]244ITR810(Cal)

Amitava Lala, J.1. Let the affidavit of service filed in court today be kept with the record.2. By making this writ petition, in effect, the petitioners have challenged the order of transfer of the case from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Asansol, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle VIII, Calcutta. The contentions of the writ petitioners are that by virtue of Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Director-General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officer subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him.3. The specific case of the petitioners is that no opportunity of hearing was given to ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]243ITR575(Cal)

Y.R. Meena, J.1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion, set out at pages 2 and 3 of the statement of case :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in including the amount of Rs. 10,76,283 representing the value of incomplete jobs for the computation of capital for the purpose of calculating the relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment of the assessment year 1970-71, should be made also on the facts and realities which was not prevalent during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the term 'agree...

Mahesh Kumar Sarda Alias Maheswari Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)127,2000CriLJ2951

S.B. Sinha, J.1. The reference to this Bench has been made by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of G.R. Bhattacharjee and Malay Kumar Basu, JJ., questioning the correctness of a judgment of another Division Bench in Sadhan Chandra Kolay v. State consisting of S.K. Tiwari and D.P. Sarkar (II), JJ., reported in 1999 (1) CLJ 20 on the following two questions :-1. Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Sadhan Chandra Kolay v. State 1999 (1) CLJ 20, insofar as the same holds that petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. in connection with any offence of an outstation cannot be entertained by this Court, and as such, such a petition is not maintainable, is correct view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sailesh Jaiswal v. State of West Bengal 1998 C Cr LR (Cal) 342.2. Whether in view of the majority decision of the Full Bench in Sailesh Jaiswal v. State of W. B. 1998 C Cr LR (Cal) 342, this Court has jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a fit ca...