Kolkata Court May 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.
Gaurav Goel Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Cal)358,[2000]245ITR169(Cal),[2001]116TAXMAN46(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made challenging the various notices served under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is apparently clear from the notices that the assessment proceeding's under the Income-tax Act, are pending'. The scope and ambit of Section 281B is that where, during the pendency of any proceeding for the assessment of any income or for the assessment or reassessment of any income which has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interests of the Revenue it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director-General or Director, by order in writing, attach provisionally any property belonging to the assessee in the manner provided in the Second Schedule. It is also apparent from Sub-section (2) of the said section that every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of...
Berger Paints India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR645(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. Under this writ petition, the writ petitioner-company and another challenged the notice of reassessment dated March 28, 2000, issued by the concerned Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, respondent No. 1, herein, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 1993-94. Such notice can be issued by the income-tax authority provided the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year or there is a failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for this assessment, for that assessment year. 2. The scope and ambit of Section 148 is very exhaustive and the same is applicable either when income has escaped from assessment or failure on the part of the assessee. Such section under the Act is a procedural ena...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Amarnath Hait
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT195(HC)
ORDER Ordered that the above notification be published in the Calcutta Gazette and copies whereof forwarded to other departments of this Government and the Directorates and other officers under this department for Information and guidance.'6. Therefore the learned counsel for the State submitted that in view of the fact that the diploma granted by the Bengal Textile institute has been treated to be equivalent to degree, but this could not be brought to the notice of the learned single Judge, therefore, the learned single Judge has gone wrong. The learned counsel also submitted that in view of the Interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by Tridib Kumar Kundal there was no choice left with the Government but to Issue the order. Thereafter it is alleged that the writ petition was withdrawn. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the life of panel prepared by the Public Service Commission is only for a period of 15 months. In this connection, learned counse...
infar (India) Ltd. Vs. Madan Mohan Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR1019],(2001)ILLJ453Cal
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in a Writ Petition No. 1555 of 1999 dated December 6, 1999 filed by the petitioner Madan Mohan Ghosh. The learned single Judge set aside the order of the 1st Industrial Tribunal's whereby the Tribunal permitted Mr. Amar Roy, an advocate, the President of the Employers' Association to represent the employer company before the Tribunal.2. The petitioner workman raised an Industrial Dispute with regard to his illegal termination by the employer and accordingly the matter was referred, to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication by appropriate Government. The petitioner was represented by Sri S. N. Roy Chowdhury, General Secretary, Motor Workers' Union of which the petitioner was a member. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner against the representation of legal practitioner Sri Amar Roy to conduct the case on behalf of the respondent/company. Petitioner workman file...
Abu Bakkar Gazi, Adv. Vs. Md. Atiar Mollah and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT53(HC)
K. J. Sengupta, J.1. The short point has arisen in this case as to whether a Joint affidavit in view of Rule 30 of the Contempt of Court Rules of this Court 1975 should be sufficient for defending a contempt proceeding Initiated against more then one person. Mr. Gupta appearing for the alleged contemners submits that it is permissible in view of the decision rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1981 CLJ 528. Mr. Gupta is very fair enough to bring another decision of the learned single Judge holding contrary view. The aforesaid Judgment was rendered by Justice K. M. Yusuf reported in 1991 Crl LJ 246. Mr. Gupta submits that the contrary view taken by Justice Yusuf relying on Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in : AIR1952Cal919 . He argues that the Division Bench judgment of this Court has not dealt with this point, particularly it has been held amongst others by the Division Bench that though contempt proceeding is in the nature of proceedings in pe...
Sankar Prasad Basu and anr. Vs. General Manager, Burn Standard Co. Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-2000
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR855],(2001)ILLJ1371Cal
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated December 16, 1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. The fact of the matter is as follows:On November 11, 1983, a tripartite settlement was arrived at wherein it was provided that those who would opt for the existing system should be entitled to ad hoc increased pay of Rs. 56/- per month with effect from January 1, 1981 and those who would opt to retain the existing system of D.A. should also be entitled to one lumpsum amount of Rupees 1,000/-. It was further provided that there would be no revision in the existing pay nor they would be entitled to any benefit in their wages or total emoluments. The time for exercising such option under the settlement was November 30, 1983. By a notice dated November 27, 1983, the period of exercising option was extended till December 10, 1983. The appellants-writ-petitioners did not exerc...
Mohd. Mia Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR1],(2000)IIILLJ1147Cal
D.P. Kundu, J.1. The petitioner, a workman, in this writ proceeding has challenged the award passed by the 1st Labour Court, West Bengal on October 4, 1989 in case No. VIII-C-9/86. By an order dated July 22, 1999. I requested Mr. Dipak Kumar Ghosh, advocate to act as Amicus Curiae without any remuneration and Mr. Ghosh very kindly agreed to act as Amicus Curiae. At the time of final hearing of the matter the learned advocate for the workman did not appear but Mr. Ghosh, advocate assisted the Court by arguing the case. None appeared to argue the case on behalf of the respondents.2. The petitioner while working as a workman in National Jute Manufactures Corporation (A Government of India Undertaking) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) in Winding Department, by a charge-sheet dated April 17, 1998 the following charges were levelled against the petitioner:'You are hereby charged with disobedience and disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment in that on April ...
O.N.G.C. Mazdoor Union and ors. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT318(HC),2000LabIC2571
1. By this writ petition petitioner prayed that the writ in nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees under the respondent No. 1 forthwith. In pursuance of list of seniority as published by the respoondents in annexure 'A' and respondents be directed to fix the wages of the petitioners at par with the regular employees without any further delay.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union under the Indian Trade Union Act and petitioner No. 2 is General Secretary of the Union and petitioner Nos. 3 to 158 are the casual/contingent workers. The respondent No. 1 has been set up by the respondent No. 4 to carry out the research work in the field of Oil and Natural Gas within the territory of India. The respondent No. 1 for the purpose of carry out the research, employed some regular employees as well as engaged the workers on casual and contingent basis. There is a rules for recruitment of the regular employees but service condition...
Bijoyesh Ghosh and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4311
ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J.1. This is a revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the order dated 2-11-1998 passed by Sri S. K. Neogi, Sessions Judge, Bench-V, City Sessions Court, in S.C. No. 42 of 1995. By this order learned Sessions Judge dismissed a petition of the petitioners (accused persons of that case) for an order of discharge under Section 227, Cr. P.C. and another petitioner under Section 311, Cr. P.C. By this petition the accused persons against whom charges had already been framed sought an order of discharge and by the petition under Section 311, Cr. P.C. They made a prayer for an order summoning certain persons for being examined as witnesses of the Code. The grounds on which this petitions were filed before the Court below were that although that Court framed charges against accused persons (present petitioners) for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, I.P.C. on the basis of the documents produced ...
Lagan Jute Machinaries Co. Ltd. Vs. Candlewood Holdings Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT70(HC)
S.K. Sen, J.1. The appeals and the applications both are taken up for hearing. The appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of thelearned single Judge dated 23rd March, 2000 whereby the learned single Judge in the application for execution appointed Receiver for realisation of commercial charges and consolidated rates and taxes in terms of prayer (e) of column 10 of the Tabular Statement. It appears that an order was passed on February 9, 2000 wherein it has been recorded in terms of an order dated May 18, 1999 the Judgment debtor did not pay any instalment and in that view the decree dated October 13, 1982 had became executable. The second order dated February 9, 2000 has not been challenged by the Judgment debtor in any proceeding. The application was made by the Tabular Statement before the learned single Judge for execution of the said decree dated October 13, 1982. It may be noted that the said decree was passed by consent of the parties and the parties filed their Terms ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »