Kolkata Court April 2001 Judgments

Subhas Dutta Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT36(HC)

A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a Public Interest Litigation whereby the Petitioner has prayed that by a writ of Mandamus the Respondents or their agents should be restrained from extending the project of Metro Rail through the river bed of Adi Ganga in any manner and to recall and rescind the project of extension of Metro Rail. Petitioner alleged that he is a Social Worker and environment activist. Therefore he has filed this petition for protection of the environment. It is alleged that the Green Bench of this Court has already passed an order of cleaning of Adi Ganga and also directed to Implement the Scheme for improvement of the river Adi Ganga. It is alleged that Petitioner has come to know that the extension project of Metro Railway from Tollygunge to Garia has now started and substantial part of Metro Rail will be laid on Adi Ganga by constructing pillars at the middle of the river. It is alleged that on account of construction of pillars in the river bed the entire stretching fro...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C. Still Export Gmbh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]249ITR677(Cal)

1. On an application under Section 255(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 learned Tribunal is justified in law in allowing the carry forward of the losses of earlier years amounting to Rs. 11,34,420 claimed by the assessee-company ?'2. The assessee is C. Still Export GmbH and the assessment year is 1981-82. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on a total income of Rs. 10,44,680. In computing the income, the Assessing Officer has allowed the set off of earlier years' losses, from the assessment years 1973-74, to 1980-81 amounting to Rs. 11,34,420.3. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has enhanced the income under Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and the carry forward and set off of loss of Rs. 11,34,420 which was allowed by the Assessing...

West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. Koren Fo ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2002Cal211

Sengupta, J.1. Both the plaintiffs broughtthe suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,29,476.33 being the amount of the alleged damages suffered by the plaintiff No. 1. Now the plaintiff No. 2 is the subrogee of the claim of the plaintiff No. 1.2. The short facts which are admitted is that the defendant No. 1 undertook for carriage of 1,90,000 bags of cement from a port of foreign origin namely Korea and for delivery thereof at Haldia Dock partly and partly at Calcutta Port. It is the case of shortlanding of 4,114 bags at Calcutta port. This alleged shortage was detected as alleged in the plaint, before 9th August, 1980, and this has been certified by the Short Landing Certificate No. 420/HGRH. The plaintiff No. 1 was the transferee consignee by virtue of purchase of the goods on high seas and these goods were admittedly Insured by the plaintiff No. 2. It appears that on payment of the insured value, the right, title and claim of lost goods has been assigned and/or subrogated by the plaint...

izharul Haque Vs. Joint Director General of Foreign Trade

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001(132)ELT539(Cal)

ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned circular being No. 28 (RE): 98 dated 28th July, 1998 being Annexure-GG to the petition. Admittedly, the writ petitioners are the exporters of the textile goods namely Gents jackets with or without lining both knitted and woven. In this case the petitioner's grievance is that in terms of the export policy the petitioner exported 8 consignments of textile goods abroad and those goods are concerning woven materials. According to the petitioner they are entitled to get duty exemption (DEPB) credit as per notified rate as in Annexure-F to the writ petition. The applications were made for the exports which had taken place immediately after the aforesaid impugned circular being issued. Those applications were not processed in accordance with the previous notification wherein there is no mention of charging value cap for DEPB entitlement sofar as woven materials are concerned. The department conce...

Swazol Organics and 2 ors. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30.10.2000 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in Case No. O.A./152/2000.2. The respondent Bank filed a claim case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta on 16.5.2000 for realising certain sum of money amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs and odd from the opposite party-appellant.Subsequently, on 5.7.2000, the Bank filed an application for injunction restraining the opposite party from transferring certain properties as mentioned in Schedules I and II of the claim petition as also from withdrawing the money lying in T.D.R. account at Bhabanipur Branch of the said Bank. An ex-parte order was passed granting the aforesaid injunction. Subsequently, the injunction matter was heard in presence of the present appellant and by the impugned order the ad-interim order of injunction so far as it relates to Schedules I and II is concerned was made absolute and the injunction order as it relevant to Schedule III of t...

Prem Kishan Mudgal Vs. M/S Aryavaidya Pharmacy (Coimbatore) Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT24(HC)

1. This is an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure virtually for recalling the orders dated 5th August, 1999 and 26th August, 1999 respectively by which two decrees were passed in respect of principal sum and interest in an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as in hearing undefended suit respectively. Although, some other prayers were made but those above are consequential to the aforesaid two reliefs.2. The petitioner/defendant has made two-fold submissions before this Court by saying that they were prevented by sufficient cause in attending the Court on the relevant dates and times when the decrees were passedand such decrees were obtained by the respondent/plaintiff by practising fraud upon the Court.3. Although, the application was belatedly made i.e. by a supporting affidavit dated 22nd August. 2000 about a year after passing such decrees but since the question of fraud has been taken which may ultimately culminate ...

Hindusthan Magcobar Chemicals Ltd. Vs. O.P. Rajgarhia

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]110CompCas661(Cal)

Dilip Kumar Seth, J. 1. The moot question that arises in these two applications being G. A. No. 99 of 2001 and G. A. No. 100 of 2001 is as to whether the decree obtained against the defendant-applicant can be enforced or proceeded with or could be treated to be a valid decree, against the defendant-judgment-debtor by the plaintiff, in view of the fact that the claim that was sought to be enforced arises out of a guarantee given by the defendant against recovery of an advance made to a company against which proceedings under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the SICA) was initiated and referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as the BIFR). In order to appreciate the question first we may refer to the facts of the case in short, before we note the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. The plaintiff-decree holder on February 9, 1996, allegedly advance...

Mohan Dome Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT208(HC),[2001(90)FLR605]

M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The brief facts as stated in the instant writ application are that the petitioner had joined the erstwhile Coal Company on or about 1968. At the time of entry into the erstwhile Coal Company, petitioner declared his date of birth as 1st July, 1945 which petitioner claims was duly recorded in the original 'B' Form and in other records. Later on. the said date of birth was also incorporated in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Register. The account of which was numbered as B/62533. According to the petitioner, after passing the Mining Sirdar Examination, he became a Mtnlng Sirdar. The Manager of the Colliery duly recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 1st July, 1945 in the application for Mining Sirdar Examination which date was also recorded in the Mining Sirdar Certificate. The petitioner further states that accordingly he had all along been under bona fide belief that date of birth has been correctly maintained in the office records as on 1st July, 1945.2. It ...

Kajaria Investment and Properties P. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and o ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Cal)192,[2001]250ITR619(Cal)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. All these three matters are taken up for hearing and being disposed of by this common judgment and order as the facts and the law involved therein are identically same.2. The grievance of the petitioner in all these cases is that the concerned Assessing Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147(a) since there was no material to have reason to believe that the petitioners did not disclose the material fact and the income which has escaped from assessment. There is an interim order in all the three matters till today. In this kind of cases the only point to be considered is whether any reason has been disclosed by the Assessing Officer or not. It appears that in the affidavit-in-opposition purported reasons have been disclosed by the officer concerned. The reason, according to him, is that the petitioner did not truly and correctly show the cost of construction in the books of account. After more than four years the of...

Sisir Kumar Dutta Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT178(HC),[2002(92)FLR372]

M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. Though several reliefs have been prayed for at the time of hearing, they have been confined to the prayers 'c' and 'd' as on 31st January, 2001 petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The prayers 'c' and 'd' read as under:'(c) To issue a writ of and/or writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the Respondent-Authority was bound to accept the resignation of the petitioner in accordance with Law and thereby release him from the service of the Corporation for joining other concerned. (d) To issue a writ of and/or writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned Respondent or Respondents to pay damages to the petitioner by way of making good the financial loss suffered by him for not being released from the service of the Corporation either under the scheme of voluntary retirement or upon acceptance of his utter of resignation dated 6th of December, 1995.' 2. Facts to the extent relevant for purposes of enquiry in the matter on hand are as under.3. Th...