Kolkata Court April 2001 Judgments

Mrs. Shruti Banerjee (Biswas) Vs. Dr. Ranajit Biswas and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT513(HC)

D.P. Sengupta, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 5.2.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2001 directing the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court. Sealdah to issue search warrant in connection with complaint case No. C-28 of 2001.2. The present complainant/opposite party No. 1, Dr. Ranajit Biswas filed a petition of complaint against the present petitioner, who is his wife, and the sister and brother of his wife. The allegation made in the complaint is that the wife of the complainant used to leave the matrimonial home on trifling matters and used to live for days together at her father's house at Khardah, North 24 Parganas. It was alleged that on 31.7.99 she left her matrimonial home and thereafter she did not return. Suddenly on 17.3.2000 she along with her brother and sister and three other persons came to the house of the complainant, snatched the key of the flat from the complainant...

Jishu JaIn Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT97(HC)

D.P. Sengupta, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 9.4.2001 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Sessions trial No. 3(3)/2001 which corresponds to Sessions Case No. 40(2)/2001 arising out of Behala P.S- Case No. 596(12)/ 2000 dated 26.12.2000 under sections 326/307/459 IPC.2. The present petitioner was put up on trial before the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge to meet a charge under sections 326/307/IPC.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that since section 307 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life, the learned Asstt Sessions Judge,who is not empowered to inflict such punishment, is not competent to try such offence. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of provision of section 28(3) Cr.PC an Assistant Sessions Judge may pass the sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term exceeding 10 years. Since the offence under se...

ito Vs. Dishergarh Power Supply Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)71TTJ(Cal)725

ORDERPramod Kumar, A.M.This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 30-6-1994, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Calcutta VI, in the matter of penalty under section 271C for the financial year 1991-92. Revenue is aggrieved of Commissioner (Appeals)'s deleting penalty of Rs. 1,20,000 imposed by the Deputy Commissioner, Range 21, Calcutta.2. Rival contentions are heard, orders of the authorities carefully perused and relevant legal provisions deliberated upon.3. In this case, there was admittedly a short-deduction of tax at source from dividends, and that such a short-deduction amounts to Rs. 1,20,000. This short-deduction is attributed to a programming error. It appears that the computer was programmed to print tax amount in five figures (before decimal points) and surcharge amount in four figures (before decimal points) since, apparently due to a briefing error, the programmer could not visualise that some tax deduction amounts will be more than Rs. 99,999 or...

Kshiti Krishna Bhowmik Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. While the applicant was working as Deputy Registrar on ad-hoc basis in the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT in short), he was served with a letter dated 17.4.2000 issued from the Office of the respondent No. 2 i.e., Registrar, Principal Bench, New Delhi, by which he was informed that in view of recasting of seniority of Section Officers/Court Officers/Private Secretaries as on 1.11.1989 as per revised seniority list circulated under letter dated 4.4.2000, his seniority position was relegated to a lower slot and accordingly he was required to be reverted to his original cadre of Section Officer and hence, the applicant was asked to exercise his option in writing to select a place of posting in any of the four identified Benches where vacancies were available. The option was directed to be exercised within 19th April, 2000. Fearing his reversion with simultaneous transfer to far away place, the applicant has filed this original application challenging the sa...

Additional Commissioner of Vs. Dalhousie Investment Trust Co.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)80ITD210(Kol.)

1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 1995-96. The following grounds are raised in this appeal : 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in fact as well in law in directing to accept the method of valuation of stock adopted by the assessee company in its computation of total income, when the said method of valuation is different from the method of valuation of stock as adopted in preparing its final accounts which shall only be considered as the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee company within the meaning of Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in fact as well in law in allowing loss to the extent of Rs. 61,91,923 (10,19,32,104 - 9,57,40,181) claimed by the assessee erroneously adopting a method of valuation of stock for the income tax purpose which is different from that employed in preparing...

Kartick Shaw and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT466(HC)

D.P. Sengupta, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 13.11.98 passed by the learned Special Judge, 6th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in N.D.P.S. Case No. 17 of 1997 thereby convicting the accused appellants under section 20(b)(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 and sentencing them to suffer rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each.2. The prosecution case is that a team of officers of Narcotic Control Bureau intercepted one Kartick Shaw in front of Shantiniketan Hotel near Sealdah Fly over who was found to be in possession of a gunny bag. The officers disclosed their identity and on enquiry came to know that he was possessing 'Ganja' in his bag. The accused person was given the offer that he might be searched in presence of a gazetted officer, who was present with the team of officers of Narcotic Control Bureau. The accused agreed to be searched in presence of such gazetted officer. Two i...

Raj Kumar Dalmia and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT298(HC)

D.P. Sengupta, J.1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 1.1.5.91 .passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 2845 of 1986 under section 379/114 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Bowbazar P.S. Case No. 461 dated 22.8.86.2. According to the petitioners' Rasol Vanaspati Distributors, of which the present petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the partners advanced a sum of Rs. 13,40,000/- to M/s. Sree Enterprises, of which the defacto complainant Rajendra Kumar Damani was the proprietor and there was a stipulation for repayment of the said amount with interest. According to the petitioners Rs. 4,30,000/- was repaid and an amount of Rs. 9,10,000/- was balance due. According to the contention of the petitioners Damani handed over anAccount Payee pay Order for Rs. 2,75,000/- towards payment of the said outstanding amount. According to the defacto complainant, there was an agreement to the effect that on execution of a document D...

Roof and Tower Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)72TTJ(Cal)433

ORDERPramod Kumar, A.M.These three appeals, filed by the assessee, are directed against the consolidated order dated 1-10-1999, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Calcutta-IV, in the matter of order under section 144 read with section 147 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1993-94. Although this consolidated order also deals with the assessment year 1992-93, appeal for that year is delinked with the above three appeals since the basic ground that we are to adjudicate by way of this consolidated order, i.e., the ground regarding legality of assuming jurisdiction under section 147, is not relevant for the assessment year 1982-83.2. A perusal of records indicates that Honble Calcutta High Court had, vide order dated 11-12-2000, in WP No. 3186, inter alia, directed this Tribunal to hear these appeals expeditiously, particularly on the point of jurisdiction, Honble High Court further directed that the point of jurisdiction shall be decided before hearing the merit. Hon...

Shri Ram Sakal Singh Vs. State Bank of India and 5 ors.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal arises out of order dated 8.6.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in PT Case No. 683 of 1998.2. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim case against the present appellants for realisation of certain sums of money which were granted as loan to different Potato Growers since they failed to repay the loan in spite of notice. While the claim case was going on the defendant Nos. 1, 2,4 and 5 filed an application for dismissal of the claim case on the ground that the case was not maintainable. Defendant No. 3 also filed an application praying for deleting his name. Both the applications were heard by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna, and by a common order, the prayer regarding dismissal of the claim case on the ground of maintainability was rejected while the prayer regarding deleting the name of defendant No.3 was allowed.3. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants i.e. defendant N...

Kailash Nath Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT518(HC)

M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. As identical notices have been issued by the Enquiry Officer in relation to a charge sheet issued by the same disciplinary authority levelling identical charges against the respective petitioners in the above three writ petitions and are subject matter of challenge. The three writ petitions have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P. No. 8131 (W) of 1996 have been noticed in this Judgment and order. The facts in the other two writ petitions being identical.3. The petitioner while working as Constable under Railway Protection Force was proceeded with departmentally and a charge sheet was issued. The charge and the imputation levelled against the petitioner read as under;'Cons/8103 Uma Kant of RPF Post/Andal (P) is charged for active connivance in a theft case of sugar from Rly. Wagons in that- On 6-1-93 white he along with Nk/1508 R.N. Singh, Cons/8980 K. Nath and Cons/3924 ...