Kolkata Court June 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.
Alekhya Ghosal Vs. Matri Sangha Janakalyan Ashram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Cal19
ORDERBasudeva Panigrahi, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore, in Misc. Appeal No. 209/2000 dated 13th June, 2000, refusing to grant an order of injunction by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 100/2000.2. The plaintiff/opposite party which is a charitable institution has filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore for a decree for declaration of title that it is the absolute owner of the suit property described in Schedule 'B' to the plaint and also further a decree for declaration that the defendants have no manner of right, title, interest and possession in the suit property and further for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from disturbing the plaintiffs possession in any manner whatsoever in enjoying the suit property. The plaintiff/ opposite party has claimed the title on the basis of adverse possession against the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ethelbari Tea Co. (1931) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2000
Reported in: [2002]256ITR470(Cal),[2003]129STC256(Cal)
1. This rule has been obtained by the Revenue Department by raising the following question :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee's claim under Section 35CCA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is allowable even though the approval of the society had been withdrawn with retrospective effect ?'2. We have heard Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the department and Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the assessee. In this case, only question that is raised is whether the assessee would be entitled under Section 35CCA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deduction of income-tax even though the approval of the society had been withdrawn with retrospective effect. In support of this contention, Mr. Agarwal relies on a division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bankam Investment Limited : [1994]208ITR208(Cal) . It is true that in that case, it was held that when...
Magma Leasing Limited Vs. Sanderson Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT401(HC)
ORDERThe Court 1. The plaintiff/applicant has filed a commercial suit for realisation of Rs. 1,01,15,735/- from the defendants/respondents and inter alia moved for several interlocutory orders and prayed for appointment of a receiver. Accordingly, a receiver was appointed who was directed to take charge of the properties. The application appeared before the different benches of Oils Court and the order of appointment of receiver was, however, maintained.2. The respondents filed an application under section 391(6) of the Companies' Act, 1956 being C.A. No. 385 of 1998 and is said to have obtained an ex parte order of stay of all the proceedings but the petitioner having come to know about such order, preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court who vacated the interim order.3. Since the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner kept himself engaged in several proceedings, inadvertently, it escaped his notice to take the writ of summons for lodgement and for service on t...
Kalpana Endow Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-2000
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ66Cal
ORDER1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the letter dated September 7, 1999 being Annexure 'N' whereby acceptance of offer of voluntary retirement has been withdrawn.2. Undisputed fact of this case is as follows:The petitioner was employed by the respondent Bank on compassionate ground In the post of clerk owing to death of her husband. She served the bank for more than 20 years, and that is why under the service regulation she applied for voluntary retirement to the bank which in its turn however had accepted on certain conditions which amongst others is for liquidation of the outstanding dues. In course of her employment her son, viz., one Debashis Endow being the respondent No. 8 as then being unemployed obtained Transport Loan on certain terms and conditions. The petitioner became guarantor of the aforesaid loan granted in favour of her son. The term loan was duly disbursed and the respondent No. 8 purchased a vehicle being one of the securities of term loan. The...
Bhaskar Chandra Roy Vs. Indrajit Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT465(HC)
B. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This Revislonal application is at the Instance of a plaintiff In a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order dated March. 3, 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Allpore in Misc. Appeal No. 294 of 1999 thereby setting aside the Order No. 34 dated June 5, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court in Title Suit No. 358 of 1998.2. The dispute involved in this application is over 4ft. passage lying by the side of the property owned by the parties. Initially the property belongs to the common vendor of the parties. The said vendor transferred 3 cotthas of land to the Opposite party herein. In the said deed it was mentioned that the disputed passage can be used by the vendor only for the purpose of easement and right of passage. There was, however, a stipulation in the deed that the vendor in future will not transfer this 4ft. passage to any subsequent purchaser.3. The petitioner herein purchased 2 cottahs o...
Smt. Mousumi Hansda and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1375,(2000)3CALLT481(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1.This appeal Is directed against a Judgment and award dated 28th April, 2000 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4th Court, Alipore in M.A.C. No. 357 of 1997 under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded for death of Copal Chandra Hansda which took place on 3.8.97.2. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether only because the appellant No. 1 has got service on compassionate ground in place of her deceased husband, the learned Tribunal was correct in awarding a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- or not.3. Mr. Banik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the apex Court in Helan C. Rebello v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in : AIR1998SC3191 and submitted that the learned Tribunal is wrong in taking the factum of appointment on compassionate ground ...
Dilip Chowdhury Vs. Andaman and Nicobar Administration and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT189(HC)
ORDERA. Lala, J.1. This writ petition is pending for quite sometime before this Court. In fact, the same was filed in the year 1984 challenging an order passed by the Tahsildar on 7th August, 1984 whereunder such Tahsildar in exercise of the powers conferred under section 202 of Andaman and Nocobar Islands LR & LRR, 1966 ordered to evict the petitioner from alleged encroachment of an area comprising of 965 sq. mtrs considering that such encroachment is fresh one. It was reported to him that the petitioner hereunder was intended to construct a pucca retaining wall as shown inthe sketch map enclosed and started constructing a temporary structure thereon or fenced on the Government land measuring an area 965 sq. mtrs. adjacent to survey No.865 situated at Junglighat.2. According to Mr. Tapan Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner that such order was passed without issuing any show cause notice or giving any opportunity of hearing while an order passed by the...
Smt. Bidya Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Cal)109,[2000]245ITR196(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge dated September 2, 1992. The main grievance of the appellant/petitioner in this appeal is that the learned single judge should have quashed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated March 30, 1989, and the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated September 12, 1991, and ought to have held that the amendment in Section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was amended in October, 1975, is not applicable in the case of the director of a company who resigned in 1974 when the company has not gone into liquidation. Consequently, the petitioner as well as the petitioner's husband who was one of the directors, before the amendment in Section 179 is not liable for any tax of the company in question under Section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961').2. The petitioner's husband expired on May 22, 1988, at Calcutta. The petitioner's husband was one of the dir...
Hari Charan Shaw Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR280],(2000)IILLJ1306Cal
S. B. Sinha, J.1. This application raises an interesting question of law as regards the period from which an order of punishment takes effect.2. The petitioner is an employee of Eastern Railway Administration. On the ground of commission on certain misconduct, he was placed under suspension on January 8, 1998, which was revoked by an order dated April 20. 1999 and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and by an order dated July 28, 1989 he was directed to be removed from services with effect from July 31, 1989 A/N. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by an order dated October 16, 1989. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal which was marked as O.A No. 29 or 1989. By an order dated May 4, 1994, the learned Tribunal directed the appellate authority to consider the matter afresh as the said order was not a reasoned one. Up...
Putlur Jambulingam Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(74)ECC324,2000(121)ELT291(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. In view of the Notification No. 144, Port Blair dated 24.10.1973/Kartika 2, 1895, the Chief Commissioner of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in exercise of power conferred by Rule 29 of the Andaman Excise Rules, 1934 and in supersession of all previous notifications/orders on the subject, the rates of the excise duty payable by the Licencees on the Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Beer was re-scheduled. However, the said notification was challenged before a Single Bench of the High Court at Calcutta under the constitutional writ jurisdiction and an order was passed by the Single Bench of this Court on 28.8.1975 holding that the Chief Commissioner has got no power to impose the excise duty by the impugned notification under Rule 29 of the Rules, by observing that it seems that the authority concerned sought to impose 'excise duty' for importing goods in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands from the mainland. Therefore, the authority has got no power to levy any excise du...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »