Kolkata Court February 2001 Judgments

Allahabad Bank Vs. Sanjoy Concrete Products and ors.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 30,7.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in Case No, P.T. 13 of 1998.2. The case of the appellant in short is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 obtained a loan on cash credit as well as term on 22.2.1978 and executed necessary documents as per rules. The limit of the loan was Rs. 42,000/- at the initial instance which was raised from time to time up to Rs. 36,35,000/-. Each time the respondents executed necessary documents as per rules. Sometime thereafter the respondents started defaulting in repayment and the total accumulated loan with interest rose up to 1,05,27,045.79. Since the respondent did not repay the loan in spite of demand, a suit was filed before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Deoghar, which was subsequently transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal after the said Tribunal came into operation.3. The respondent entered appearance filed written statements but thereafter made defaul...

Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. State of West Bengal a ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2001Cal117

ORDERK.J. Sengupta, J.1. Both the aforesaid two writ petitions have been taken out by Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority challenging two Awards dated 26th June, 1996 passed in LRA Case No. 541 of 1993 (v) dated 26th June, 1996 in LRA Case No. 487 of 1993 (v).2. In both the petitions grounds for challenge are identically same and so the same are heard together in order to decide the same by a common Judgment.3. The case of the petitioner can be put in a narrow compass.4. For the benefit of CMDA the plots of land were acquired by the State Government under provision of West Bengal Land Requisition and Acquisition Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 1948 Act) which provides amongst other for speedy acquisition of land. The CMDA being requiring body was not served with any notice by the Collector for reference to Court, nor by the Reference Court itself. It is incumbent upon the reference Court to issue notice of the reference case upon the petitioner as 'an interested person' wi...

Birla Technical Services Vs. Nirmal Kumar Chakraborty

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001(88)FLR1095],(2001)ILLJ1077Cal

ORDERSubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. viii-123/1998. A reference was made by the Government to the said Tribunal for adjudication whether termination of service of the opposite party with effect from September 26, 1996 is justified and what relief, if any, he is entitled to. After the reference was received by the said Tribunal, the opposite party filed his written statement and the company also filed counter reply. The opposite party filed an application on March 30, 2000, inter alia, praying for allowing him to rely on two documents in evidence on recall. The said documents are- (a) Internal memo from one Samir Kumar Chaudhury to the opposite party under reference No. BTS/1OM/194, BMP 2686 dated August 31, 1995; (b) A hand written note by the opposite party dated March 24, 1995. The opposite party contended that those documents are necessar...

Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1385Cal

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. In this writ application an employer has challenged an order dated May 20, 1992 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 14B of the 'Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('Act').2. In the month of October, 1977 the petitioner was served with a notice dated September 21, 1977 issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 14B of the Act directing the petitioner to show cause why damages will not be levied for delayed payment of contributions under the Act accrued between June, 1966 and February, 1975 as shown in the statements annexed thereto.3. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ application it has been alleged that the petitioner replied to the said notice and the respondent No. 1 after considering the representation decided not to take further action, but long thereafter on January 10, 1992 the respondent No. 1 fixed a date of hearing of the earlier notice dated September 21, 1977 and ultimately by the order...

Venkatarama Murlidhar Shenoy Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT316(HC),[2001(91)FLR66],(2001)IILLJ1540Cal

1. This writ petition is directed against the order of dismissal dated 11th December, 1998 passed by the General Manager of the respondent Bank and also notice dated 9th July, 1998 issued by the Appellate Authority of the Syndicate Bank, Manipal in the State of Karnataka which preceded the aforesaid order of punishment.2. The short history of the case is that at the relevant time the petitioner was sub-Manager at Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta Branch of the respondent Bank. On or about 25th March, 1977 he was charge-sheeted with the allegation of misconduct for having violated Regulation 3(1) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 that constitute misconduct under Regulation 24 of the said Regulations. The allegation of misconduct based on the imputation of charges that he had issued four delivery orders of 34 numbers of Aluminium Coils in favour of constituent without receiving corresponding payment for such delivery and further without observing regular pro...

Officer-on-special Duty, Calcutta Improvement Trust and ors. Vs. Prana ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT562(HC),2001(2)CHN57

A. Kabir, J.1. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in this appeal are assignees of alease-hold interest is respect of a plot of land measuring 3 cottahs 13 chittacks and 31 square feet, being plot No.7 of Calcutta improvement Scheme No. LXIV.2. The lease in respect of the aforesaid plot was initially granted by the Trustees for the improvement of Calcutta in favour of one Ajit Kumar Hazra, Dwijendra Nath Hazra and Amar Nath Hazra on 18th June. 1962 for a period of 99 years with option of renewal for a further period of 99 years on various terms and conditions.3. One of the covenants made by the Lessees and to be performed by them is as follows:'6. Not to assign or transfer in any way or to mortgage the said land without the previous consent in writing of the Chairman of the board.'4. The less or on its part made several covenants to be performed by it. including the following :'2. that the board will on the written request of the lessee made three months before the expiration of the term hereby...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Badulipur Tea Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]249ITR483(Cal)

1. By this reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the sale agreement, the Tribunal was correct in law in maintaining the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 32,00,000 and Rs. 50,000 made by the Income-tax Officer under the head 'Business' and 'Other sources', respectively ?'2. The assessee is a limited non-resident company. The assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82 was passed by the Income-tax Officer on March 27, 1986, estimating the business income of Rs. 32,00,000 against the returned income shown at nil. The Income-tax Officer has also made addition of Rs. 50,000 on own estimate basis as income from other sources. The order was passed under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the a...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahalaxmi Rice Mill

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]249ITR456(Cal)

1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question set out in paragraph 2 of the application for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that in the original assessment no interest under Section 215(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was levied as the advance tax paid was in excess of the 'assessed tax', the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that interest under Sub-section (3) of Section 215 of the said Act cannot be levied on the reassessment made under Section 147 of the said Act ?'2. The assessee is Mahalaxmi Rice Mills. The assessment years are 1987-88 and 1988-89. The previous year ended on relates to both the assessment years as on 1393 B.S and 1394 B.S., respectively. Thereafter there was a search under Section 132 of the Act by the Department at the office and business premises of the assessee including the godown of the assessee. The asses...

Cit Vs. Badulipur Tea Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Cal)582

In the Calcutta High Court Y.R. Meena & Ashim, Kumar Banerjee, JJ.Order BY THE COURT:By this reference application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the sale agreement, the Tribunal was correct in law in maintaining the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 32,00,000 and Rs. 50,000 made by the Income Tax Officer under the head 'business' and 'other sources' respectively?'2. The assessee is a limited non-resident company. The assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82 was passed by the Income Tax Officer on 27-3-1986, estimating the business income of Rs. 32,00,000 against the return income shown at nil. The Income Tax Officer has also made addition of Rs. 50,000 on own estimate basis as income from other sources. The order was passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In a...

Gajanand Harlalka and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]249ITR9(Cal)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-X, Calcutta, acting as the Commissioner under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, passed on the application for waiver of penalty by the writ petitioner-assessee for the assessment years 1970-71, 1976-77 and 1977-78.2. The Commissioner affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer imposing the penalty for the aforesaid relevant assessment years. From a perusal of the records I find the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 44,800 for the assessment year 1970-71, Rs. 4,961 for the assessment year 1976-77 and Rs. 5,230 for the assessment year 1977-78.3. The case, in short, is that admittedly the petitioner filed returns beyond the stipulated time under the statute. So while passing the assessment orders the concerned officer imposed the aforesaid amounts of penalty. Against the aforesaid order an application under Section 18B(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act was mad...