Kolkata Court April 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.
Smt. Jayanti Mukherjee Vs. Hindusthan Fertilizer Corporation Limited a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Cal244,(2000)3CALLT232(HC),2000(1)CHN734
P. K. Samanta. J.1. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for eviction, recovery of possession and mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant No.1, Hindusthan Fertiliser Corporation Limited was a monthly tenant under her in respect of the ground floor flat at premises No. 432/1, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Calcutta 45 at a monthly rental of Rs. 850/- payable according to English Calender Month. Such tenancy of the defendant No. 1 was on condition that the defendant No. 1 will put it's particular officer or employee, the defendant No. 2 to occupy the suit premises for residential purposes only. The defendant No. 2, upon his retirement from the service of the defendant No. 1 will be bound to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/petitioner. It was further pleaded that the tenancy of the defendant No. 1 was required to be surrendered with effect from 30.9.87 upon retirement of the defendant No. 2 from the employment of defendant No. 1. In the...
Ryam Commerce and Plantations Ltd. Vs. Motilal Baid and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas91(Cal)
Amit Talukdar, J. 1. The subject matter of this revisional application is Order No. 9 dated May 28, 1999, passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1999. The learned Chief Judge by his impugned order allowed the revisional application filed on behalf of the opposite party challenging an order dated February 22, 1999, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta, andallowed his prayer for examination of cheque in question (exhibit 1) by a handwriting expert. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up before this court on several grounds. 2. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that this is a dilatory tactic adopted by the accused/opposite party to delay the trial and that from the evidence adduced by the bank officials it never transpired that the cheque was returned as the signature was not tallying with the specimen signature lying with the bank and even no s...
Tata Finance Limited Vs. Pragati Paribahan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Cal241
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 1-9-99 passed in Misc. Case No. 4481 of 1999 by Shri B. Basu, Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta whereby any whereunder while disposing of an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the application), it was directed :--'In view of the above circumstances, the ptr. is directed to deposit Rs. 52,900/- by 10-9-99 and the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- in five consequitive montly instalment of Rs. 10,000/- each. On payment of Rs. 52,000/- by the ptr. the respondent No. 1 shall release the vehicle bearing No. WB-41/9889 to the ptr. forthwith.'2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute.3. The respondent herein had entered into an agreement of hire purchase with the appellant herein on or about 27th October, 1997.4. The respondent herein was to make payments as has been specified in the agreement itself and upon his failure to...
Dalhousie Jute Company Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, As ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Reported in: 2001(130)ELT50(Cal),[2002]125STC233(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition is basically made for the purpose of obtaining order or orders in the nature of withdrawal, cancellation and/or rescind a notice of demand in form VII-L, order of assessment charging interest under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the period of four quarters ending March 31, 1985 and the purported order dated January 19, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 confirming the order of assessment and purported notice dated December 6, 1993 issued by the respondent No. 3 so far the direction of making payment of interest under Central Act for the period of four quarters ending with March 31, 1985 and all proceedings relating thereto amongst others.2. Mr. Sumit Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended before this Court that the petitioner is a unit of Hindusthan Development Corporation Limited Co. It carries on business of manufacturing jute goods from its jute mills within the State of West Bengal and also outside t...
Nishi Kanta Halder Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC119
Malay Kumar Basu, J.1. This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1998 passed by Shri S. Bhattacharyya, S.D.J.M., Diamond Harbour in Misc. Case No. 46 of 1995/T.R. No. 379/1998 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. By this order the learned S.D.J.M. allowed a maintenance petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by Sarama Halder (wife of the present revisional applicant) and directed the revisional applicant (opposite party in that case) to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. In this revisional application the appellant/husband has prayed for an order setting aside the impugned order of the S.D.J.M. on the ground that the same is illegal and unsustainable.2. The relationship of husband and wife between the parties is undisputed. Admittedly, the applicant married the respondent-Sara ma, according to Hindu rites. The case of the petitioner-wife before the learned Magistrate was that the opposite party-husband used to press he...
Mahendra Kumar Poddar Vs. Bansal Builders and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Cal58,2001(2)ARBLR62(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This is an application, basically, for the purpose of passing an order for dissolution of the registered partnership firm, M/s Bansal Distributors and further order for the purpose of winding up of the affairs of the partnership firm along with various incidental prayers including Injunction etc.2. This application is made under a suit being C. Section No. 527 of 2000.3. In the said suit, an application was made for the purpose of various interlocutory reliefs.4. Ultimately, by an order dated 28th February, 2000, a Single Bench of this High Court was pleased to refer the disputes and controversies between the parties involved in a suit to an appropriate forum in view of the Arbitration Clause for appointment of arbitrator with a rider that the arbitration clause does not provide the machinery for referring the disputes for adjudication by the Arbitrator as no specific name has beenmentioned nor the same has been appointed.5. From such order, an appeal was prefer...
La Opala R.G. Ltd. Vs. International Distilleries (i) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: 2002(25)PTC206(Cal)
Samaresh Banerjea, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against an order dated 26th February, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipor, 6th Court, dismissing an application for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a passing off suit being Title Suit No. 3 of 1998.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is engaging in manufacturing and marketing of table wares and allied products made of crystal glass and opal glass of high quality. In the year 1994 with a view to diversity to high quality glass wares it entered into a technical tie-up with Doosan Glass of South Korea for the manufacture Of authentic crystal glass for the first time in India and such glass wares were launched by the plaintiff in 1996 under the trade mark SOLITAIRE. The range of crystal wares of the plaintiff marketed under such trade name includes beautifully crafted tumblers ; whisky glasses ; steam wares for brandy, wine, champagne, sherry, l...
Union of India (S.E. Rly) Vs. Dulal Chandra Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT405(HC),2000(2)CHN335
1. This is an application filed by the Union of India under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) inter alia, challenging an Award made and published by the learned Arbitrator on March 18, 1999.2. Union oflndla has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application.3. The petitioner has also prayed delay in making the application to becondoned.4. According to the pelitioner, condonation of delay should be allowed Inasmuch as notice under section 14(2) of the said Act was received by the petitioner on April 26, 1999. The petitioner has also stated that steps were taken by the administration sought for legal opinion from the Ministry of Law and Justice and thereafter on 2nd June on the basis of the opinion received by the said Office the petitioner has taken steps in the matter between 22nd May and 6th June, 1999. The Court was closed for Summer Vacation and on reopening instructions were given to learned ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P.P. Ghosh (Decd.) (Through Executrix S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: [2000]244ITR574(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J. 1. On an application under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at page 2 of the statement of case for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner cannot rely onthe report of the valuer to invoke the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and in allowing the assessee's appeal ?' 2. The assessment years involved are 1967-68 to 1974-75. The Wealth-tax Officer has made assessment valuing the immovable properties of the assessee and in 1967-68, he valued the property of the assessee at Rs. 7,70,090. The same value was repeated up till 1969-70. In the assessment year 1970-71, the ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. P.P. Ghosh (Decd)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Cal)365
Y.R. Meena, J.On an application under section 27(l) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at p. 2 of the statement of case for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth Tax cannot rely on the report of the valuer to invoke the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under sub-section (2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and in allowing the assessee's appeal ?'2. The assessment years involved are 1967-68 to 1974-75. The Wealth Tax Officer has made assessment valuing the immovable properties of the assessee and in 1967-68, he valued the property of the assessee at Rs. 7.70,090- The same value was repeated up till 1969-70. In the assessment year 1970-71, the value ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »