Kolkata Court April 2001 Judgments

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Manav Construction Private Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT78(HC)

The Court 1. This is an application, in the nature of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the defendant in the aforesaid suit. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:'Amendment of pleadings : The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amount his pleadings in such mannerand on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.'2. Two relevant purposes of such Order 6 Rule 17 are necessary to come to an appropriate conclusion i.e., 'act at any stage' and 'determining the real questions in controversy'. Therefore, there cannot be any embargo in ignoring the application only on account of the stage or stages of this proceedings. The guiding factor is determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The object of this rule is to enable the real questions in issue between the p...

Dulal Chandra Biswas and ors. Vs. Sailendra Nath Sadhukhan and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2001Cal209

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This second appeal is at the instance of defendants in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 28, 1992 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Second Court, Nadia in Title Appeal No. 34 of 1988 thereby setting aside those dated September 14, 1987 passed by the learned Munsif, Kalyani in Title Suit No. 291 of 1987.2. The respondents filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the appellants, their tenants from the suit room on the grounds of default in payment of rent and reasonable requirement.3. So far the ground of default is concerned, the appellants by complying with the provisions contained in Section 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act ('Act') got protection under Section 17(4) thereof.4. As regards the ground of reasonable requirement, the definite case of the respondents was that they required the suit room for starting a business of the son of the respondent No. 6.5. The aforesaid suit was con...

Snehansu Jas Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT155(HC),2001(3)CHN313

A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the learned single Judge, on account of conflicting judgment of this Court, to a Division Bench for resolving the conflict. For convenient disposal of this reference few necessary facts may be noticed. That a vacancy to the post of Headmaster arose in Govind Nagar Muslim High School and the school authorities sought prior permission from the District Inspector of School (DIS) for filling the post. The DIS granted permission but it was qualified that the post shall be reserved for Schedule Caste as per roster vacancy vide his memo No. 630S dated 1.10.1992. The school authorities could not recruit the Head Master due to non-availability of the candidate. Therefore they sought for de-reservation of the post on 10th October, 1993 but the DIS again asked them to fill the vacancy as per the roster vacancy by his letter dated 26th July, 1994, The Managing Committee then filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 237 (W) of 2000 (S.K. Manataj Ali and...

Apeejay Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]250ITR414(Cal)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated December 31, 1993, and order dated August 11, 1978, October 31, 1979, December 19, 1989, and the proceedings for charging interest under Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the order rejecting the applications for waiver and the Certificate Case No. 82 T. R.-24 of 1978-79 and 35 T. R-24 of 1979-80 for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and to direct the respondents and also to refund amount paid by the petitioner with interest. 2. The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder :One Steel Rolling Mills of Hindusthan Private Limited and Apeejay Structural Private Limited were amalgamated into one company, namely, the writ petitioner herein. The subject-matter of the writ petition relates tothe assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Interest is sought to be realised under Section 220 of the Income-tax Act, 1901 (in short 'the Act' hereinafter). So the writ petitioner herein filed an application f...

Chinmoy Guha Thakurata Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)ILLJ895Cal

Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated May 9, 1996 whereby the learned single Judge hasdismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that thepetitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for revocation and cancellation of the charge-sheet served on him; the suspension order, all disciplinary proceeding including the alleged show cause notice; proposed termination from service and for a direction for reinstatement of the petitioner with all back wages. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Fitter in general shift in the Kalyani Spinning Mills Limited Unit No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Mill). He was a permanent employee of the said mill. On September 23, 1982 about 30-40 members of the rival Unions went out of the mill's premises from the main gate without gate pass disregar...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Singla Tea and Agriculture Industries L ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]250ITR274(Cal)

1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, this court directed the Tribunal to refer the following question, set out at page 2 of the statement of case, for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the allowance of the carry forward and set off of the earlier year's losses from tea growing and manufacturing business against the income from service charges received during the year ?'2. In compliance with the direction, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question for our opinion.3. The assessee's tea estate was taken over by the Government of West Bengal on April 21, 1981. The writ petition was filed by the assessee. The High Court held that the taking over of the tea estate by the Government of West Bengal was illegal and accordingly directed the Government to restore possession of the tea estate to the assessee. Against that the Government went to the Supreme Court and till...

Sankar Nath Das Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT49(HC)

M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The grivence of the petitioners 19 in number in the instant writ petition is against the clarificatory order issued by the Central Government being annexure 'F' at pg. 63 of the writ petition, whereby it has clarified that the benefit of 'addition to qualifying service' under Regulation 26 of UBI Employees (Pension) Regulations. 1995 is to be extended to such employees who would be recruited by the bank in accordance with the Recruitment Rules which specify that in respect of such post the benefit of Regulation 26 of Pension Regulation 1995 would be admissible. The said clarification is in accordance with the second proviso to the said Regulation 26 which reads as under:'Provided further that this concession shall be admissible if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefit of this regulation.'2. In annexure 'F'. It was further intimated to the bank that only such emplo...

Anz Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]250ITR125(Cal)

1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at pages 2 and 3 of the paper book :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the circular of the Central Board of Revenue dated October 6, 1952,read with the subsequent circular dated October 9, 1984, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,46,37,731 being the interest on sticky advances and/or debts doubtful of recovery credited during the year in question to the interest suspense account is taxable ?2. Whether, in view of the specific observation of the majority judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT : [1986]158ITR102(SC) that the court was not concerned with the actual effect of the aforesaid circulars and, therefore, the same need not be exempted and the further observation of the majority judgment that on wh...

Grindlays Bank P.L.C. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]106CompCas1(Cal),2001(76)ECC335,2001(130)ELT419(Cal)

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. In the instant writ application the writ petitioners, namely, the Grindlays Bank and its two officers have assailed Memorandum No. T-4/1/ SU.81(SCN), dated 11-6-1981, issued by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act), Government of India, whereby the writ petitioners were directed to show cause as to why the adjudication under Section 23D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (the FERA, 1947), for violation of Section 10(1)(a) of the FERA 1947, due to delay to repatriate the sum of Rs. 15,02,351 as determined by the income-tax authorities on reassessment of the earlier assessment as made finally relating to the assessment years 1949-50 to 1959-60 and the decision of holding 'adjudication proceeding' as contemplated under Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (FERA 1973) issued by the competent authority being dissatisfied with the reply of said memorandum. 2. Rule issued and interim order of injunc...

Gautam Kumar Mondal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. Seven applicants have jointly filed this OA challenging the decision of the respondents dated 10-10-95 (Annexure-A3) by which the panel dated 14-7-95 for promotion to the post of OS Grade II was cancelled.2. The admitted facts in this case are that the applicants and private respondents were working as Head Clerk in the Security Department of Eastern Railways. In order to fill up 13 vacancies in the posts of O.S.Grade. II from amongst Head Clerks a notice was issued on 28-12-94. The 36 eligible candidates were selected for appearing in the written test which was held on 24-6-95 and a further continuation test or supplementary test was held on 7-7-95. 28 candidates appeared in the aforesaid written test and out of them 20 candidates qualified for viva voce test. The viva voce test was held on 13-7-95 and on 14-7-95, a panel of 12 candidates as per Annexure A-1 was published. The names of the applicants have been included in this panel. But the names of the private respondents did no...