Kolkata Court February 2001 Judgments
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Bissheshwarlal Mannalal and Sons
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)80ITD69(Kol.)
1. This Revenue's appeal is directed against the order dt. 31st July, 1996 passed by the learned CIT(A)-V, Calcutta, in the matter of assessment order under Section 143(3) for the asst. yr. 1992-93.Solitary grievance of the Revenue is against CIT(A)'s 'deleting the addition of Rs. 45,28,754 made under Section 69D on account of borrowal made by the assesses in cash on bundles'.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a Calcutta-based firm and owns a tea garden at Rosekandi in Cachar district of Assam. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had an arrangement with one M/s Batdeodas Satya Narayan (hereinafter referred to as the local moneylender), which had an office at a location near assessee's tea garden i.e., at Janlgang Bazar in Silchar, and under this arrangement the tea garden office of the firm could borrow money in cash from the local moneylender for meeting local expenses such as labour payments etc. but immediately upon doing so, the l...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. Bissheshwarlal Mannalal and Sons
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: (2002)74TTJ(Cal)994
Counsels: R.N. Bajoria & M.L. Sharaf, for the Revenue D.K. Ghosh, for the AssesseeIn the ITAT, Calcutta C Bench Dr. Satish Chandra. J.M. & Pramod Kumar, A.M.Order Pramod Kumar, A.M.This revenue's appeal is directed against the order dated 31-7-1996 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-V, Calcutta, in the matter of assessment order under section 143(3) for the assessment year 1992-93. Solitary grievance of the revenue is against Commissioner (Appeals)'s 'deleting the addition of Rs. 45,28,754 made under section 69D on account of borrowal made by the assessee in cash on hundies'.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a Calcutta-based firm and owns a tea garden at Rosekandi in Cachar District of Assam. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had an arrangement with one M/s Baldeodas Satya Narayan (hereinafter referred to as the local moneylender), which had an office at a location near assessee's tea garden, i.e., at Janigang Bazar in Si...
Tag this Judgment!Samir Kumar Ghosh Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT188(HC)
P.K. Ray, J. 1. This writ application is filed praying fixation of the basic pay scale at Rs. 2,600/- Instead of Rs. 2,280/- as was being paid in the year 1994 to the petitioner along with the other prayers as mentioned thereto, in prayers 'a' to 'f' which are given below :-(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities and/or each one of them to allow the petitioner to draw the basicsalary of Rs. 2600/- on the scale of pay Rs. 1780/- to 3780/- with all admissible service benefits and to determine the condition of service in accordance with law and also to pay the arrear of salaries from 21st April 1987 till the date: (b) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus concerned and each one of them to act and proceed strictly in accordance with law; (c) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondent authorities to call for entire records so that conscionable Justice may be administered: (d) Issue Rule Nisi in terms of praye...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sambhu Nath Sardar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT532(HC),2001(2)CHN249,[2001(91)FLR993]
T. Chatterjee, J.1. Let us first take up the hearing of the application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal. On the question of condonation of delay, we have heard the learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent. We have carefully perused the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, we hold that sufficient cause has been shown by the State of West Bengal and others for condoning the delay in filling the appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed: and delay in preferring the appeal is condoned.2. Let the appeal be registered if it is otherwise in form. There will be no order as to costs.Re : Application for stay (CAN 679/2001)3. When some arguments were advanced on the prayer for grant of interim relief during the pendency of the appeal, the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Karmakar and ors. Vs. State of W.B.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3828
ORDERDebiprasad Sengupta, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-8-92 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1991 thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 27-2-91 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Midnapore in U.R. Case No. 254 of 1982 (T.R. 269/83) convicting the accused petitioners under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15-8-82 at about 16.30 hours P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 held an ambush, when they found accused Gurucharan Pasi and Nikhil Chandra Pramanick to carry one brake-beam and to enter into an incomplete structure of bricks having no roof. They followed them and caught red-handed with the said brake beam. Entering into the said structure they found another person named Shib Charan Pasi handling with railway materi...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Chamaria Vs. Corporation Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT63(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This is an application in substance for transfer of the aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction in view of amendment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, (hereinafter described as the said Act) whereby counter-claim of the debtor (plaintiff herein) is exclusively triable by the Tribunal formed under the aforesaid Act as by virtue of Section 31 of the said Act, this counter-claim in guise of suit stands transferred.2. Mr. Hirak Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Somen Sen, learned Advocate submits that in view of the aforesaid amendment Act this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and determine this suit. The subject matter of this suit is nothing but a counterclaim which is covered by the said Act by reason of amendment, therefore, this suit which is pending in this Court stands transferred by virtue of Section 31 of the said Act,3. His further contention is th...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Radha Raman Jew and ors. Vs. Shaligram Subha Karan Kemani and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Cal78,(2001)3CALLT202(HC)
The Court1. This is a tale of fate of a decree holder who was successful in obtaining a decree for khas possession dated 3rd December 1964 which had reached its finality on dismissal of the appeal preferred therefrom, for default and no restoration and/or readmission thereof was attempted to be made. The decree was put into execution and the same was resisted unsuccessfully by the judgment debtors right up to Supreme Court, however, last attempt was made by the judgment debtors seeking to review of the Division Bench judgment and order of execution. However, it appears that they have lost all interests now. Having found the judgment debtors to be unsuccessful then came and still comes the turn of the occupants who were alleged to have been brought in by the judgment debtors and/ or sub-tenant to challenge executability of the decree. Some of the objectors herein had tried previously to resist execution of the decree setting up a plea of adverse possession unsuccessfully right up to app...
Tag this Judgment!Asish Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT111(HC)
1. This writ petition relates to alleged termination of service of the incumbent dated 3rd March, 1998 and also declaration that Clause 11(3) of the special rules for the Management of Secondary Schools established and run by a Christian church/Missionary Society/Board/ Religious Society/ Subsidiary Society or other successor in law of West Bengal Secondary Act (hereinafter referred to as the said rules) is ultra vires to the Constitution of India amongst others. 2. The petitioner joined in the school i.e. St. Paul's School at 33/1, Raja Ram Mohan Sarani previously known as Amherst Street, Calcutta-700009 (hereinafter referred to as the said school). 3. A chargesheet was served upon the petitioner on 13th May, 1996 by the Secretary, Governing Body Diocesan Schools containing various allegations i.e. mal-administration, financial irregularities, lack of communication due to non-availability of petitioner in the school quarters for want of food, poor academic atmosphere in the school and...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Bolpur Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. the Chairman, ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Cal68
ORDERAshim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Subject matter of challenge herein is a notification dated April 15, 1992 issued under Section 66 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as Act of 1973) and a consequential order passed by the authority on June 12, 1997. The vires of Section 64, 65 and 66 of the said Act of 1973 is also under challenge. This Court initially directed notice to be served on the Advocate General of the State as the vires of the State statute is involved herein. However, the Advocate General did not appear. This Court directed Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned senior Advocate to assist this Court as amicus curiae.2. Mr. Somendra Chandra Bose, learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, has submitted as follows :--1. Sections 64,65 and 66 of the said act are ultra vires the Constitution since the same empower the State to acquire property without payment of compensation.2. According to Mr. Bose, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) were in force...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnikant and Co. Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: 2001(131)ELT552(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The Writ Petition has been directed against Shipping Corporation of India being the effective respondents herein claiming for refund of the entire congestion charges including interest. Admittedly, the claim in the writ petition is a money claim. In the writ petition the maintainability point has been raised. However, Mr. Bandyopadhya in his usual fairness does not wish to press the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy and also on the ground of contractual transaction inasmuch as the writ petition was admitted by this Court without any reservation. Affidavits have been filed. The Court, at the first instance, in exercise of its discretion thought it fit to be entertained. So it was entertained. Therefore as on date the theory of alternative remedy is wholly misplaced now. Coming to the merit of the case, it is the case of the writ petitioner that Respondent/Corporation was entrusted with certain cargoes to be carried from ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »