Kolkata Court July 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.
State of West Bengal Vs. M/S. Shrey Marcentile Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT58(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The vires of Calcutta Corporation (Taxation) Regulations, 1989 hereinafter referred to as the said regulation published in CalcuttaGazette on 1st February, 1990 is in question in these appeals. The relevant clauses of the said Regulation read thus :-- '1. (a) .................. 3. Fees for recording of transfer or devolution of title of any land or building under sub-section (5) of section 183 of the Act shall be as per Schedule below :-- Schedule (1) In the case of transfer/agreement for sale or cost of acquisition or in the case where there is certificate or in the case of testamentary succession--Amount of fee in rupees(a) If the price-value of the property declared, does exceeded rupees fifty thousand0.5% of the price value(b) Where such price/value exceeds rupees fifty thousand but does not exceed rupees one lakh1% of the price value(c) Where such price-value exceeds one lakh but does not exceed three lakh1.5% of the price value.(d) Where such price/value exceeds ...
Nandlal Rander Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR810(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge dated November 13, 1998.2. The main grievance in the appeal is that the learned single judge was wrongly directed to serve the notice on the appellant/petitioner, to determine his tax liabilities in respect of Rs. 1,36,42,000 while the amount of Rs. 1,36,42,000 has been disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Disclosure Scheme, 1997'), and further the learned single judge has erred in not directing the Commissioner of Customs to pay the tax of Rs. 43,38,156 to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka III, Bangalore, and the balance amount should be refunded to the appellant as the appellant has declared the amount of Rs. 1,36,42,000 under the Scheme, 1997.3. The petitioner is an assessee under the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore. On December 30, 1997, the petitioner filed a declaration in the prescribed form unde...
Assistant Cit Vs. Anup (India) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2000
Reported in: [2001]79ITD98(Cal)
ORDERN.K. Saini, A.M.This is an appeal filed by the department against the Commissioner (Appeals)s order dated 10-5-1994 for the assessment year 1988-89 passed under section 251/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The appeal is time-barred by nine days. On the basis of the application dated 19-9-1994-and also as per the arguments advanced by the learned Departmental Representative, we condone the delay on merit and the appeal is admitted.3. The department took the following ground in this appeal:'The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in directing the assessing officer to collect date to come to a finding whether the appellant-company did carry on Tea blending operation using the stipulated number of employees and thereby fulfil the requirement of section 80-I(2)(iv) when such business of Tea blending did not come under the expression manufacture or processing of goods to be able to enjoy the benefit of section 80-I'.4. To start the argument, the learned Departmental Re...
Raj Chowdhury Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Cal232,(2000)3CALLT376(HC)
K.J. Sengupta. J. 1. The petitioner by this writ application has asked for the Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of the decision of respondent No.3, viz., the Director, Doordorshan Kendra, Calcutta taken on its behalf by Progamme Executive, Doordarshan Kendra, Calcutta being the respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner's application for extension of telecast of the mega serial 'Mahaprabhu' beyond 455 episodes was rejected.2. Briefly stated facts are produce hereunder. The petitioner applied for telecast of the mega serial under the name and style of 'Mahaprabhu' to depict the life, works, teachings and preachings of Shree Chaltanya a religious leader whose advent was in Bengal in 15th century. The proposal of the petitioner to telecast the said serial was for at least 500 episodes. The petitioner contends proposal was accepted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in principle. Thus it was an agreement of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to allow the petitioner to telecast...
Tarun Kundu and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR987],(2001)ILLJ258Cal
S.B. Sinha, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioners have questioned an order dated September 10, 1999 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioners for being regularised in services had been dismissed.2. The only case made out by the petitioners is that as they had completed more than 240 days of service in a year and had worked for 6 years, they are entitled to be regularised in services.3. Law nowhere states that if a person has worked for more than 240 days in a year is entitled to be regularised in service. Provision contained in Chapter v. of the Industrial Disputes Act had been enacted merely to protect the right of workman from being, illegally dismissed from service. Section 25-F of the said Act merely contemplates payment of compensation at the rate of 15 days' wages per each year of completion of service,' and only in that context, it has been provided that such year of completion of service shall be deemed to have been completed i...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Kumar Trading Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(72)ECC748,2000(121)ELT18(Cal)
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 1st February 1999 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1650 of 1998 whereby the Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and set aside the order of seizure and show cause notice dated 14th August, 1998 and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to re-export the subject consignment to their original destination, Dubai. The petitioner filed the present to re-export his two containers to their original destination being No. CRXU for 4638054, Seal No. 122200, Seal No. 20673, AI-81, containing one 40 ft. STD. Contr. STC. 81 (43 cases and 38 pallets), another bearing No. POCU, 1197581, Seal No. B-303669, Seal No. 122163, J-157, containing one 10 ft. STD. Contr. STC 57 pallets and bearing lying at Calcutta Port originally despatched to M/s. Nitu Enterprises, Kathmandu of Nepal. It was prayed that the order of seizure of the said containers by respondents and sho...
Nirmala Das and ors Vs. Panchanan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Cal37,(2001)2CALLT154(HC)
ORDERK.J. Sengupta, J. 1. Appellants being the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against two Judgments and decrees having concurrent findings ofthe learned Courts below who have dismissed the suits for declaration of easement right in respect of a passage situates in between the premises Nos. 100A and 100B at D.C. Dey Road belonging to the plaintiffs on the one hand and premises Nos. 100/1A and 100/15 D.C. Dey Road belonging to the defendants on the other hand. The said passage situates on the western side of the premises of the plaintiffs/appellants. The plaintiffs/ appellants claim that since the date of purchase of their property by their predecessor-in-interest the aforesaid passage is being used uninterruptedly as the only passage for agress and ingress of their premises till 1981 when the defendants all of a sudden obstructed the plaintiffs from using the said passage and thereby their right, title and interest in easement right has been denied. The defence of the defendants/...
Subal Mondal Alias Bapi Mondal and ors. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT438(HC)
B. Panigrahi. J. 1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal case being No. C-3073/ 98 corresponding to T.R. No. 296 of 98 under sections 406/420of the IndianPenal Code pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas. 2. The factual metrix of the prosecution case is as follows: The opposite party No. 2 is an employee of M/s. Homendia Constructions Private Limited having its registered office at 49A, Ramdulal Sarkar Street, Calcutta. On 11th September, 1998 the opposite party No. 2 lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore and the learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance under section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code and transferred the case to the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore and for enquiry and trial under section 192(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. After the case was transferred to the l...
Sakal Gore Vs. Secretary, Bar Library Club, High Court
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1594Cal
1. Leave in terms of prayer (a) is granted.The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable in relation to Bar Library Club. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to (a) every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company (b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months and (c) such other establishments or class of establishments, in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding twelve months, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. Clauses (a) and (d) of the said provisions admittedly can have no application in the instant case.2. The question raised herein is whether the respondent is a 'shop1 or an 'establishment' within the...
Rupali Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ302Cal
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice.2. This application is directed against a judgment and order dated February 29, 2000 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 1557 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner herein for appointment on compassionate ground had been dismissed holding, 'Neither the Governments nor the public authorities, are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the Rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›