Kolkata Court February 2001 Judgments

Smt. Arti Basak Vs. Uma Sankar Bose

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2001Cal113

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Appellant is the transferee landlord of premises No. 9/1A, Sahitya Parisad Street, Calcutta.2. The Respondent is the tenant of the said premises in question under the Appellant.3. Appellant filed an ejectment suit on November 26, 1981 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta praying for a decree for eviction against the Respondent as well as mense profit inter alia, on the ground of subletting and transferring possession without the knowledge and consent of the Appellant in respect of a portion of the suit premises to one, Shri Suryadeo Tewari in the year 1972 and one, Girija Sarkar Bose in the year 1964.4. The said suit was contested by the Respondent by filing a written statement wherein the Respondent contended, inter alia, as follows :--i) There had been no subletting. However, Respondent admitted that the said Girija Sankar Bose and Suryadeo Tewari were staying in the said suit premises. ii) Girija Sankar Bose is the first cousin of the Respondent. The father o...

Ananda Kumar Halder Vs. Appellate Authority and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2001Cal92

ORDERBhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a Second Transferee in a proceeding under Section 4(1) of the Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 ('Act') and is directed against order dated July 13, 1987 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, an Appellate Authority, under the Act in L.A.A. No. 23 of 1986, thereby affirming the order dated February 28, 1986 passed by the Special Officer under the Act.2. One Sukumar Ghosh, the father of the opposite parry No. 3 herein, sold the disputed property in favour of opposite party No. 4 who in his turn transferred the property to the present petitioner.3. On the death of said Sukumar Ghosh, the opposite party No. 1 filed an application under Section 4 of the Act for restoration of the land transferred on the ground that the property was transferred in distress and that there was an oral agreement of reconveyance.4. The Special Officer by order dated February 28, ...

Bholanath Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT114(HC)

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated August 8, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court at Krishnanagar, District: Nadia in Title Appeal No. 13 of 1981 affirming the judgment and decree dated December 20, 1980 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court at Krishnanagar, District: Nadia in Title suit No. 116 of 1980.2. On or about August 23, 1975 the plaintiff/appellant instituted the present suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction alleging that the suit property originally belonged to Brindaban Chakraborty who executed a deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1954. The possession was, also, delivered in favour of the plaintiff. Since the date of acceptance of the gift, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and in the recent survey operations his name was duly recorded in respect of the premises in suit and khatians were finally published. The plaintiff...

Sk. Ismail Ali Vs. State of W.B.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3831

ORDERDebiprasad Sengupta, J.1. The present revisional application is directed against an order dated 31-1-2001 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 1106 dated 27-12-2000 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code directing thereby the Superintendent of Presidency Jail to produce the petitioner before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam in connection with Dispur P.S. (Guwahati, Assam) Case No. 1106 dated 27-12-2000.2. Dispur Police Station (Guwahati, Assam) Case No. 1106 dated 27-12-2000 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one M. Bez Baroowa alleging commission of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On a prayer made by the Investigating Officer of the said Dispur P.S. Case No. 1106, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(s), Guwahati, Assam by his order dated 25-1-2001 issued production warrant against the present petitioner along with one ...

Swastik Projects Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Snehakana Chatterjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2002CriLJ185

ORDERDebiprasad Sengupta, J. 1. The present revisional application is for quashing of a proceeding being case No. C/1412/97 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. On or about 15-3-1997 the petitioner issued several cheques in favour of 13 co-owners allocation in respect of premises No. 9, Pankajini Chatterjee Road and the said cheques were post dated cheques dated 31-3-1997. The aggregate amount of the said cheques was Rs. 18,65,828/-. The said cheques were presented for encashment with the banker of the complainant and the same were dishonoured. Thereafter demand notice was sent demanding the cheque amount. On refusal to make the payment of the cheque amount the aforesaid proceeding was initiated against the accused petitioner.3. The only point raised by the learned Advocate of the petitioner is that a post datd cheque is a bill of exchange and it cannot be considered as a cheque within...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.S. Atwal and Co. (Gua)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Cal)309,[2002]254ITR592(Cal)

1. Three questions have come up for answer by us. Those are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is an industrial undertaking engaged in the business of production of coal ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the order passed under section 263 of the Act for the assessment year 1982-83 is bad in law ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeals for the assessment year 1982-83/1983-84 as infructuous in view of their finding that the revision order under section 263 of the Commissioner of Income-tax was bad in law?' 2. We make it clear that questions Nos. 2 and 3 arise because of the peculiar course that the assessment took in regard to the assessment year in question. At first, from the Income-tax Officer's assessment, t...

Shib Nath Bodhak Vs. Bank of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT82(HC),[2001(90)FLR809],(2001)IILLJ698Cal

M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner in the instant application has questioned the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated October 14, 2000 being annexure P7 to the writ application.2. By the said order (annexure P7), the petitioner was awarded the penalty of dismissal from Bank service in terms of Regulation 4(j) of Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline arid Appeal) Regulations read with Section 10(1)(b)(i) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949.3. The petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna vide order dated May 16, 1998 for the criminal offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 161 and 165 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code.4. The case of the petitioner is that a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the self same charges which were subject matter of enquiry before the criminal Court. The disciplinary enquiry culminated in the order passed by the Appellate...

Bhubrighat Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Calcutta on 10.11.2000 in Case No. TA/239 of 1996.2. The short facts necessary for the purpose of the appeal are that the respondent Bank instituted a number of suits in the Civil Court for the purpose of realisation of its dues since the appellants after obtaining loan from the Bank at different times did not repay the same in accordance with the agreement. Those suits excepting one were subsequently transferred to the D.R.T. when the Act came into force.While the suits were pending before the Claims Tribunal, there were series of negotiation between the parties over settlement of the disputes out of Court and the parties also obtained time on several occasions on the said pretext. There were, however, occasion when the appellants filed suit before the Supreme Court. The Bank also resorted to litigation in the High Court and in the process they also went up to the Supreme Court. The appellants also preferre...

Samarendra Nath Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT203(HC)

A. K. Baneijee, J.1. Judges are only empowered to articulate and thus translate the intention of the legislature and fulfil the object of the Act, nothing more nothing less. The particular provision of a statute can not be isolated from the other parts of the statute for its interpretation or implementation. To view the Act as a whole one has to go through the entire statute. It is preamble objects and risk and to come to a conclusion true spirit behind enactment of such statute. To give interpretation of a particular provision so as to make it harmonious with the other provisions of the said statute and true spirit thereof and to find out the correct meaning of a particular provision. One has to go through the other provisions in theself same statute dealing with the similar circumstances. To make it known the statute itself has to be read as a whole.2. The statutes relating to the appointment and terms and conditions of service of librarians and non teaching staff of Colleges other t...

Bhagwati Prasad Kedia Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Cal)336,[2001]248ITR562(Cal)

Ashim Kumar Banerjee J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated January 24, 2000.2. The basic issue raised by the appellant in this appeal is whether the genuineness of the loan in question can be considered under the block assessment, though the loan in question has been duly accounted for in the regular books of account found' during the time of search.3. The assessee being an individual obtained loan from a limited company under the Companies Act, 1956, who is also an assessee under the said Act, 1961, There had been search and seizure resulting in block assessment of the assessee. During the block assessment, the assessee was called upon to explain the advance taken, the assessee has filed the confirmation letter of loan including its income-tax file numbers of the creditor of the limited company which advanced the loan to the assessee.4. The authority, however, being not satisfied with such explanation wanted details of the persons from whom th...