Kolkata Court April 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ram Deo Tiwari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT147(HC),[2002(92)FLR362]
ORDERM.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner at the material time was serving as Sub Inspector, R.P.F and was placed under suspension by order dated 11th August, 1986 and thereafter dismissed from service on having been convicted under section 120B and 218 of Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act in Special Case No.30 of 1971 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to under go RI for two years and one year under different provisions. The aforesaid action was taken by security order No. 198/86 dated 31st December, 1986.2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been acquitted by the orders passed by the Patna High Court dated 13.12.1993 in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 1983. The petitioner submitted the copy of the judgment of the Patna High Court and asked for his reinstatement into service. Despite the petitioner having been called to meet various officers of the respondents, no action has been taken on the representation filed by...
Rajesh Lakhotia Vs. Smita Lakhotia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT311(HC),2001(2)CHN697,II(2001)DMC624
A. Kabir, J. 1. This appeal was preferred against the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1999, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Calcutta, in Matrimonial Petition No. 5 of 1996, dismissing the appellants' petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. While the appeal was pending hearing, the parties jointly filed an application under section 13B of the aforesaid Act praying, inter alia, that the appeal be converted into a petition for divorce by mutual consent under section 13B of the above Act and that the waiting period of six months mentioned in subsection (2) thereof be waived and a decree of divorce be immediately passed dissolving the marriage between the parties after taking on record the memorandum of compromise dated 15th March, 2001, jointly executed by them.2. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Bhaskar Sen submitted that the consistent view of the different High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was ...
Swapan Kumar Ganguly Vs. Smiritikana Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT148(HC),2001(3)CHN124,I(2002)DMC433
A.K. Banerjee, J. 1. The matrimonial suit was filed by the appellant against the respondent under Section 10 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 principally on the ground of desertion. 2. The learned judge of the Court below on appreciation of evidence held that although the wife being the respondent herein deserted the husband the appellant above named, there has been cogent reason for the same and hence the suit was dismissed by him. The Court below hold that the husband has not been able to prove that he has been treated with cruelly by wife. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the dismissal of the Court below the husband preferred the above appeal. 4. Mr. Bidyut Banerjee, appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that since the desertion has been proved and since the wife being the respondent herein has categorically stated in her evidence that she would not come back to her husband's place there has been irretrievable breakdown of the marr...
Bidyut Kumar Mitra Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ1001Cal
Barin Ghosh, J. 1. This writ petition was filed in the year 1988 by a Senior Manager of the respondent bank, who worked initially as a Clerk in the Imperial Bank of India and then with the respondent bank for a period of 39 years, challenging the charge sheet dated December 14, 1981, entire disciplinary proceedings thereon, the report of the Enquiry Officer, the order of recommendation passed by the respondent No. 4, the final order passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated, the appellate order passed by the respondent No. 3 and the order passed by the respondent No. 6 rejecting the application for review. Very many points had been urged in the writ petition in support of the challenge thrown to the charge sheet, proceedings pursuant thereto and the orders passed therein, but at the hearing the same was restricted to denial of natural justice during the course of the enquiry for not supplying the documents and denial of natural justice for no...
M/S. Sarat Textiles Ltd. Vs. Joint Regional Director, E.S.i. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT216(HC),[2001(90)FLR566],(2001)IILLJ744Cal
K.J. Sengupta, J. 1. The Rule has been issued in this matter. No opposition has been filed. Therefore the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have been admitted. Mr. Moitra contends that his client does not wish to file opposition at this stage either.2. The short fact of the case is that on the allegation of failure to make payment of the contribution within the time an impugned notice was issued calling upon the petitioner as to why the damages on account of failure to make payment within the time should not be quantified and be not imposed. The petitioner was invited to make representation and to give answer to the said showcause notice which was done by the petitioner. However, the cause shown by the petitioner was not accepted and the concerned authority passed the impugned order imposing damages. The petitioner, of course, made an incompetent attempt to get the impugned order set aside by making a representation to the Director which in my view could not be e...
Universal Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board Overruled
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Cal102,(2001)2CALLT417(HC),2001(2)CHN300
P.K. Chattopadhyay, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two separate judgments and orders passed by the learned trial Judge while dealing with one proceeding. Both the appeals were heard analogously as the facts are same, subject matter of disputes are similar and the parties are identical. The facts of the case are briefly summarised hereinbelow.2. Universal Petrochemicals Ltd. the appellant herein, entered into two separate contracts for supply of transformer oil to Rajasthan State Electricity Board {hereinafter called the Board). In terms of those agreements, the appellant was to furnish bank guarantee for a total sum of Rupees 1,79,200/-. The appellant furnished four bank guarantees to cover the said amount. The case of the appellant is that the entire quantity of transformer oil under Contract No. TN 1261 was duly supplied by it by December, 1986 and the same was accepted by the Board without any objection. In respect of the other contract, being Contract No. TN 1312, the appella...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.K. Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]249ITR708(Cal)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by accepting the claim of exemption of Rs. 60,437 which the assessee received after the winding up of the superannuation scheme, when some of the conditions for exemption mentioned in Section 10(13) was not fulfilled ?'2. In this case the assessee claimed that the amount of Rs. 60,437 received from an approved superannuation fund is not taxable under the Act of 1961. The Income-tax Officer has taken the view that when the conditions laid down in Section 10(13) of the Act are not fulfilled, the income of Rs. 60,437 is not exempted.3. In the appeals the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal both have allowed the claim of the assessee that the amount in question cannot be a perqui...
Gouri Sirkar and anr. Vs. Goutam Sirkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Cal70
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. In this application the following prayers have been made :--'(a) An order declaring that the purported compromise decree dated August 27, 1997. passed in C.S. No. 300 of 1997 is a nullity and void ab initio and not capable of being executed by the plaintiffs:(b) Alternatively, an order recording satisfaction in full of the said purported compromise decree passed on August 27, 1997, in C.S. No, 300 of 1997 and for a declaration that the entire claim of both the plaintiffs in terms thereof stands satisfied in full, and as such, the said decree has become incapable of execution;(c) Stay of all further proceedings of the execution application, being G.A. No. 1693 of 2000:(d) Appropriate injunction restraining the plaintiffs herein from in any way giving effect to and/or enforcing the said purported compromise decree dated August 27, 1997, passed in C.S. No. 300 of 1997;(e) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers (c) and (d) herelnabove;(f) If necessary a Special Officer ...
Sunil Krishna Ghosh and anr. Vs. Calcutta Improvement Trust
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Cal199
Sengupta, J.1. This is a suit for. In substance, specific performance of an agreement for sale of three plots of land being plot No. 27 of premises No. 6 Nayan Krishna Saha Lane, plot No. 40 out of premises No. 29 Durga Charan Mukherjee Street and plot No. 25 out of premises No. 6 Nayan Krishna Lane. The aforesaid three plots of land are measuring about 6 Katthas 15 Chataks, 2 Katthas 14 Chataks and 6 Kathas 7 Chataks respectively hereinafter referred to as the suit properties.2. One Mr. Asit Kumar Ghosh since deceased was offered by the defendant for purchase of the said three plots of land in terms of Section 81 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 as the original offeree was the previous owner of the aforesaid plots of land which were previously acquired by the Calcutta Improvement Trust. There is no dispute to the aforesaid fact that the original offeree can exercise his statutorily preemptive right enshrined in Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (hereinafter to as the said Act). Ther...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Master Stores
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Cal)452
ORDERS. Bandyopadhyay, A.M.The first ground in this departmental appeal relates to the addition of an amount of Rs, 13,01,382 consisting of payments made by the assessee towards gratuity, retirement benefit, ex gratia, etc., to its employees, as deleted in the first appeal.The assessee claimed expenses towards payments of gratuity of Rs. 10,57,173, retirement benefit of Rs. 2,17,934 and also ex gratia payment of RS 1,75,500 to its retrenched workers. Another amount of Rs. 775 was also debited under the head 'Gratuity' in the head-office account. The assessee was running a flour mill. The assessee submitted before the assessing officer that on account of deteriorating business condition, the assessee declared a closure in its flour mill after running the same for a period of two months only, viz., April and May, 1992, during the year under consideration. All the payments were claimed to have been made to the various workers and employees due to the said closure. The assessing officer wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »