Kolkata Court January 2001 Judgments

ici India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)80ITD58(Kol.)

1. Since the main issue involved in these two appeals filed by the assessee, for the two successive years, is common, the appeals have been consolidated and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.2. The facts of the case, as discussed by both the lower authorities, are as under.The assessee was the leasehold owner of a property at Bombay known by the name "Crescent House" comprising of the ground, mezzanine, first, second and the third floors of the building. On 9th Sept., 1989, the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Reliance') for sale of the property to the latter party for a total consideration of Rs. 27 crores. An advance of Rs. 18.9 crores was received by the assessee in certain instalments upto the period ended 31st March, 1990. The actual conveyance of the property by a registered deed was, however, remaining pending because of lack of completion of certain sale formalities and also non-receipt o...

ici India Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]80ITD58(Cal)

ORDERS. Bandyopadhyay, A.M Since the main issue involved in these two appeals filed by the assessee, for the two successive years, is common, the appeals have been consolidated and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience.2. The facts of the case, as discussed by both the lower authorities, are as under.The assessee was the leasehold owner of a property at Bombay known by the name 'Crescent House' comprising of the ground, mezzanine, first, second and the third floors of the building. On 9-9-1989, the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Reliance Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Reliance') for sale of the property to the latter party for a total consideration of Rs. 27 crores. An advance of Rs. 18.9 crores was received by the assessee in certain instalments upto the period ended 31-3-90. The actual Conveyance of the property by a Registered Deed was, however, remaining pending because of lack of completion of certain sale formalities and also no...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sachindra Nath Sur and ors. and

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT127(HC)

Altamas Kabir, J. 1. By a common judgment dated 5th January, 1984, the learned Arbitrator, 24 Parganas and Calcutta, disposed of Arbitration Cases Nos. 35 and 37 of 1983(V), arising out of two reference petitions under Section 8(l)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable property Act, 1952. These two appeals have been filed against the said judgment and have been taken up for hearing analogously in terms of the order dated 19th June, 1984.2. F.A. No. 329 of 1988 arises out of the Award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, 24 Parganas (North) at Barasat, in Case No. XXX/ 10 of 1972-93 involving C.S. plot Nos. 61.58, 6173, 6174, 6229, 6230 and 6260 comprising danga, bastu, tank and garden lands pertaining to Khatian Nos. 295, 2809, 910 and 2295 of mouza Ichapur, P.S. Noapara, District 24 Parganas. 3. F.A. No. 350 of 1988 arises out of the Award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, 24 Parganas (North) at Barasat, in Case No. L.A. XXX/ 1 of 1972-73, involving C.S. plot ...

Cycle Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. T.i. Raleign Industries Limited an ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT58(HC)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The application has been taken out by respondent Nos. 1 and 1A for granting leave to enter into permitted user and/or Registered user agreement of the trade marks registered under the numbers 1285, 92083 (by mistake in the prayer mentioned as 92088), 129959, 129960, 146830, 147188, and 214080.2. This application is necessitated to be made because of the judgment and order dated 13th September, 1990 passed in the aforesaid matter by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta (as His Lordship then was). In this case there is a short history which I feel it to be narrated.3. The Cycle Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) originally initiated the aforesaid proceedings in connection of which the present application has been made by the respondents, for removal of 12 trademarks of the respondent nos. 1 and 1A from the Registrar of Trade Marks under sections 32, 46, and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.4. The ab...

Sanatan Bowri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT42(HC)

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Writ petitioner was an employee of Durgapur Steel Plant. As per the service card his date of birth is September 15, 1942. In another place of the service card his date of birth was recorded as February 24, 1943. His Identity Card shows his date of birth as February 24, 1943 where as medical card shows that his year of birth is 1943. School certificate date September 25, 1970 produced by the writ petitioner to his employer shows his date of birth as 24th February, 1943. Writ petitioner was asked in the year 1975 (exact date is not supplied by any of the parties) to produce documents in support of his age. Accordingly, the school certificate was produced in the year 1975 which is not in dispute. The writ petitioner was superannuated from his service on the basis of his personal file where his date of birth was recorded as September 13, 1936. On an enquiry made by the Court, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that since at the time of joinin...

Gopal Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT1(HC)

A.K. Banerjee, J.1. Writ petitioners were appointed on temporary basis by the Food Corporation of India for stitching gunny bags in the year 1988. Although the writ petitioners are working therein since 1988, in 1991 they came before this Court for regularisation of their services. As and by way of interim order, this Court protected the interest of both the writ petitioners by directing the concerned authority to employ them as they were doing as casual worker so long the writ petition is not disposed of. Although an application for vacating the interim order has been made in the 1995, no step was taken for having the said application heard. Mr. Mitra appearing for the writ petitioner submits that since 1988 upto 91 and thereafter by virtue of ad-interim both the writ petitioners are working without any interruption Mr. Mitra has cited several decisions of the Apex Court in support of his contention. Mr. Mitra has also drawn my attention to an order passed on August 10, 2000 by the Ap...

Rajan Suri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. The question before us for decision in this case is whether the allegations made in the charge-sheet dated 16.11.99 (Annexure-A3) issued against the applicant and the statements of imputations of misconduct as mentioned in articles of charges 1 and 2 of the charge-memo, if remain unrebutted from the side of the delinquent official, would warrant a departmental proceeding on the charge of culpable negligence in the conduct of the applicant being violative of the provisions Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 or not.2. According to the applicant, while he was functioning as Joint Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Calcutta, he suddenly to his prejudice, received the impugned charge-memo dated 16.11.99 along with the articles of charge and imputations of misconduct for holding a departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for imposition of major penalty. On receipt of the said charge-memo, the applicant gave a reply denying the allegation...

indofer Society and ors. Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT257(HC),2001(134)ELT356(Cal)

K.J. Sengupta, J.1. After completion of filing of affidavits for final hearing of the writ petition and in fact after the writ petition itself was being heard for two days this application has been taken out for the following reliefs:--(a) Amendment of the main writ petition being W.P. No. 12492(W) of 1999 as shown in a copy of the said writ petition delineated in a writ being annexure 'X'; (b) Alternatively and in any event, the petitioners be allowed to urge the grounds as enumerated in the instant application and to mould the prayers as mentioned in the instant application: (c) in any event the instant application be permitted to be treated as part of the main writ petition being W.P. No. 12492(W) of 1999. 2. In this application neither of the parties has filed any affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioners and added parties and/or intervenors apart from advancing oral submission have filed written notes of arguments but other parties were contended with oral submission.3. Dr. Singhvi...

Subimal Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT270(HC)

1. Six writ petitioners by this writ petition filed in the year 1991 challenged supersession by junior cadre being the respondent No. 6 firstly in the year 1965, secondly in the year 1982 and thirdly in 1987. As there is no service condition and/or Rules framed by the Company the Central Government Rules pertaining to the Government Employees have beenmade applicable in the case of the employees working under the respondent's Corporation. From the affidavit-in-opposition it appears that the said Corporation gave promotion to the respondent No. 6 in supersession of the petitioners on the basis of 'merit-cum-qualification' as explained in paragraph 5(a) of the said affidavit. Mr. Bose appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that there has been representation made by the writ petitioners from time to lime coupled with assurance given by the Corporation that their case would be considered in due time and as such the writ petitioners did not approach this Court earlier. According t...

Dulal Kar Modak Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT336(HC)

D.K. Seth, J.1. The land of the petitioner measuring about 0.345 was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act on 27.6.1945 and the possession was taken for the public purpose by the respondents. Subsequently the Defence of India Act having stood repealed, the requisition continued by virtue of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act. 1947 replacing 1946 Ordinance with the same title. With the enactment of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable Property Act, 1952 the property requisitioned continued under the previous Act was validated by reason of section 3 of the said 1952 Act and the said Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 was repeated by section 24 thereof. The petitioner contends that no compensation has ever since been paid. Only in 1992 the petitioner was informed that out of the said property 0.434 decimal was released in favour of the petitioner in terms of section 6 of the 1952 Act.2. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the...