Kolkata Court February 2001 Judgments

Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)80ITD156(Kol.)

1.These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 10-12-1995 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - II, Calcutta, in the matter of assessment order under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 1978-79.2. The assessee has taken up as many as five main grounds of appeal, and several sub-grounds under these five main grounds, but there are only two grievances which have been pressed before us - (i) first, against addition as income from other sources to the tune of Rs. 1,27,78,112, on account of receipt of 8,50,000 from Sime Derbing Holdings Limited, being compensation following company's claim in the matter of shares in RG Shaw & Co. Ltd. sold by assessee-company in 1971; and (ii) second, against disallowance of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, on estimated basis, out of travelling expenses of Rs. 69,11,307. We will first take up assessee's main grievance which is against addition of Rs. 1,27,78,112 as income from other sources.3. In o...

Sanat Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Dwijendra Chandra Bhattacharjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2002Cal16

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This second appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated May 30, 1990 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 178 of 1989 thereby reversing those dated June 29, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 78 of 1985.2. The appellant herein filed a suit in the 3rd Court of learned Munsif, Howrah being Title Suit No. 11 of 1985 which was transferred to the 4th Court of Munsif, Howrah and was re-numbered as Title Suit No. 78 of 1985.3. In the suit, the appellant prayed for a decree for declaration that B schedule property was a separate unit and holding and the respondent Nos. 1 and l(a) were liable to make construction on C schedule property by leaving side and rare space as per rule of Howrah Municipal Corporation and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 series from making any c...

Calcutta State Transport Corporation Vs. Santi Ranjan Sengupta and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT107(HC),2001(2)CHN558,[2001(90)FLR342],(2001)IILLJ693Cal

Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (in short 'Corporation') against the Judgment and/or Order passed by a learned Judge of this Court in a writ application filed by the Corporation for setting aside the order passed by the 1st Labour Court, West Bengal, dated January 30, 1997 in Computation Case being No. Comp. 52/94 being Annexure 'N' to the writ application and for other incidental reliefs.2. It is not in dispute that in the aforesaid Computation Case the 1st Labour Court, while considering an application of the 'Corporation' under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) directed the 'Corporation' to pay a sum of Rs. 92,920/- being the computation amount of the workman by March 31, 1997 after coming to a finding on the basis of an order of a Division Bench of this Court that the workman was entitled to get monetary benefit upto March 31, 1990. The matter comes in this fashion. The wo...

Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Cal)478

ORDERPramod Kumar, A.M.These cross-appeals are directed against the order, dated 10-12-1995, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Calcutta, in the matter of assessment order under section 143(3) for the assessment year 1978-89.2. The assessee has taken up as many as five main grounds of appeal, and several sub-grounds under these five main grounds, but there are only two grievances which have been pressed before us-(i) first, against addition as income from other sources to the tune of Rs. 1,27,78,112, on account of receipt of 8,50,000 from Sime Derbing Holdings Limited, being compensation following companys claim in the matter of shares in RG Shaw & Co. Ltd. sold by assessee-company in 1971; and (ii) second, against disallowance of Rs. 50,000 under rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, on estimated basis, out of travelling expenses of Rs. 69,11,307. We will first take up assessees main grievance which is against addition of Rs. 1,27,78,112 as income from other sources.3. In ord...

Billeswar Saha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. Shri Billeswar Saha working as Superintendent E/M Gr. I Engineering Stores Depot Office of the Chief Engineer, Calcutta Zone, Calcutta has filed this O.A. against his non-promotion as Supdt. EM/Gr. I from the date of his juniors promotion and loss of seniority in the grade and prayed for the following reliefs: "8 (a) Declaration that the applicant is entitled to be promoted as Superintendent E/M Gr. I w.e.f. 25.08.1981 from when his junior Sri Nirmal Chand (MES 3111350) was so promoted and to the inclusion of his name in the All India Seniority list of Superintendent E/M Gr. I on the basis of such date of promotion and that the office order and seniority lists contrary to applicant's such date of promotion and seniority are arbitrary, unlawful and liable to be quashed; (b) Declaration that the respondents are bound by the Tribunal's Division bench judgment dated 02.07.1991 (annexure/A-12) holding that the disciplinary proceeding against the applicant is to be treated as abandoned o...

Smt. Anamitra Dutta Gupta Vs. Soumey Dutta Gupta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2001Cal88

ORDERPrabir Kumar Samanta, J.1. The very sensitive issue as to whether a natural mother should be allowed custody of a minor female child aged about 6 years at present for two days in a week, while the parents are fighting litigation amongst themselves, is the subject matter of this revisional application.2. The matrimonial background of the parents of the child is not too long and seems to have estranged 10 years after the marriage while the only female child born out of the wedlock was about 5 years old. The wife/ petitioner alleging both physical and mental torture by her husband and his parents lodged a complaint on 5-2-99 with the concerned Police Station under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband and inlaws. On the basis of the said complaint a police case was instituted. It also appears from the records that the husband/ opposite party at the same time filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife. It is an admitted position that th...

F.R.P. Moulding Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001(90)FLR1005],(2001)IILLJ441Cal

1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated May 17, 2000 delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Application filed by the appellant/Company herein.2. In the writ application the appellant herein prayed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:'A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents, their men and agents and/or subordinates from giving any effect and/or further effect to the Judgment and award dated September 23, 1998 and published on October 27, 1998 being Annexure 'H' to this petition; A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents, their men and agents and/or subordinates to certify and transmit all the records before this Hon'ble Court so that Conscionable Justice may be administered by quashing the said Judgment and Award dated September 23, 1998 being Annexure 'H' to this petition; A writ of and/or in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondents and/or their men and agen...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. S.N. Kanungo

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT1(HC)

Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This appeal was filed by the Union of India & Ors. challenging the Judgment and Order dated September 29, 2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 12 of 2000 whereby an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the Union of India challenging the Award in respect of claim Nos. 1, 3 and 4, was dismissed.2. Mr. P. K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants, mainly challenged the findings of the learned Arbitrator in Claim No. 1 and the impugned Judgment relating to the same. Over and above the aforesaid, contention has also been made with regard to the Award relating to the interest allowed and the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the award relating to interest requires clarification as neither the date from which interest is payable can be ascertained from the said Award nor the rate has been assessed properly. At this ...

Central Bank of India Vs. Katihar Jute Mills Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal arises out of an order dated 28.7.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in a case between Central Bank of India v. Kathihar Jute Mills Ltd. and 5 Ors.2. The appellant filed an application for issuance of certificate/decree for a sum of one crore ninety-seven lakhs and odd.The case of the appellant Bank in short is that they filed a suit against the respondent in the Original Side in Calcutta High Court and obtained a decree on 8.6.1986. They obtained me Certified copy on 28.7.1988. The respondents who were Judgment-debtor did not pay the decretal dues and as such the appellant had filed an application on 8.9.1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, alongwith an application for exemption to pay application fee in terms of the said Act. By impugned order dated 28.7,2000, the Presiding Officer declined to exempt the Bank from payment of the application fee. Hence the appeal.3. Their case is that they had earlier paid the necessar...

Patwari Motors Stores and 6 ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.6.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, in Case No. P.T. 652 of 1998.2. The respondent Bank preferred a claim case against the present appellants. It is the allegation of the appellant that no notice was served on them at any point of time and the Bank has obtained an expane order after suppressing summons. Their move before the Tribunal to set aside the ex parts decree also proved ineffective when they resorted to an application under Article 227 before the Patna High Court when the writ petition was dismissed with the observation was that the appellant might proceed against the ex pane decree in the appropriate Forum.Thereafter, the present appellants filed this appeal together with an application for condonation of delay and also, for exemption to make the deposit in terms of Section 21 of the Act. Both the aforesaid applications were heard in presence of the respondent Bank and also d...