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.
Leela Das and anr. Vs. State C.B.i. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2684
ORDERJoytosh Banerjee, J.1. This revision is directed against an order dated 10-7-2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Andamans allowing one protest petition filed by Mt. Leela Das, widow of deceased Swapan Kumar Das, directing further investigation of the case by a competent officer of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.2. I have heard the extensive submissions of Mr. Hazra, the learned Advocate for the Central Bureau of Investigation, the revisionist petitioner and also Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the opposite party, de facto complainant. It transpires that the revisionist petitioner wants to challenge the order impugned on three-fold grounds, namely :-Firstly, that the order impugned is not a speaking order as it fails to give any indication, why the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the authority to investigate the case further. It has been further contended that the order impugned fails to indicate the precise reason for ordering f...
Central Model School Vs. Gojer Brothers Private Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT331(HC)
B. Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against order dated December 20, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Sealdah in Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1999 thereby setting aside order No. 27 dated April 20, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 502 of 1997.2. The present petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No. 502 of 1997 in the 2nd Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sealdah for declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant in respect of the ground floor of the building in the suit property mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint and has acquired right, title and interest over and in respect of the vacant plot of land by long user adversely to the real owner as described in Schedule-B thereto and for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from interfering in any way with the plaintiffs occupat...
Alakh Kumar Sinha Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT101(HC)
1. Heard counsel for the parties. This appeal is filed impugning a judgment dated 4th October, 1993 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The learned single Judge dismissed the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, inter alia, holding that there has been an unauthorised inflation of the claim by the claimant so as to Invoke the Jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Judge also made certain observations while dealing with the application under Section 20 of the Act to the extent that if the Insurance Company pays the claimant a sum of Rs. 12,005/- within four weeks thereof, that will amount to satisfaction of the claim of the claimant.2. We, however, do not agree with the approach adopted by the learned single Judge in disposing of the Section 20 application, though we find that there has been an unauthorised inflation of the claim by the claimant.3. This Court finds that the particulars of the cla...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT219(HC),[2001]106CompCas293(Cal)
A. K. Ganguly, J 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 12th December, 1990 passed by the learned trial Judge in Suit No. 780 of 1983.2. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff, Britannia industries Ltd. (hereinafter called. Britannia) is based on a bill of exchange purported to be dated 15.02.1983, for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000,00/- (Rupees one crore only). The said bill of exchange has been annexed to the plaint and marked A.3. As per the version in the plaint, the said bill of exchange was drawn by the defendant No.2, Metropolitan Construction (hereinafter referred to as Metropolitan) and was accepted by the defendant No.1 the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called, PNB). But this is contrary to the endorsement on the bill of exchange itself.4. However, further case in the plaint is that the said bill of exchange is duly endorsed by Metropolitan in favour of Britannia and is delivered to Britannia who thus becomes the endorsee and the holder of the said bill of excha...
SAiL-DSP VR Employees' Association Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR30(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this petition voluntarily retired employees' association of the erstwhile employees of Steel Authority of India Limited and Durgapur Steel Plant have approached for the relief of exemption from paying any income-tax under Section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under the Scheme, according to the writ petitioner, they are fully exempted from paying income-tax but the concerned employer is systematically deducting taxes at source.2. The learned lawyer for the writ petitioner contends that the scheme under which the members of writ petitioner No. 1 voluntarily retired do come within the purview of Section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 2BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. He contends that though the monetary benefits given in terms of the voluntary retirement scheme are being paid quarterly in a year spreading over each and every month in equal proportion. So it was not open for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to deduct income-tax at source f...
ishran Devi Oberai Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Cal)315,[2001]250ITR362(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated March 7, 1983, issued under Section 148 of the Actfor the assessment year 1966-67. Dr. Pal, in support of this writ petition, contends that the concerned respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the notice unless certain conditions mentioned in the aforesaid section are fulfilled. In this case, though it is mentioned in the impugned notice that he has reason to believe that the petitioner has escaped assessment of an income but in fact there cannot be any reason to believe nor the same has been spelt out in the affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated that since the petitioner enjoyed interest-free loan and such benefit of non-payment of interest cannot be termed to be an income within the meaning of Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Dr. Pal contends that a Division Bench of this court has held, while deciding the question as to whether a benefit ...
Gopal Krishna Daw Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2001
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas452(Cal)
ORDERS.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5-5-1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court inter alia, rejecting an application for an order directing restoration of possession of the disputed premises to the appellants herein.2. The facts leading to the case may be summarised as under :On or about 31-10-1959 a deed of lease was executed by the Daws in favour of one Haradhan Dutta, who was carrying on business under the name and style of A. Coomer & Company. The demised premises was about 16 cottahs, 10 chittacks and 35 square feet of land being a portion of premises No. 242, Jessore Road of South Dum Dum Municipality and presently recorded as premises Nos. 84, 85 and 86, Sarat Chatterjee Road. The lease was for a period of 25 years with effect from Nov., 1959 and ending with Oct., 1984. The important Clauses of the said lease are as under:-- '(a)... Lessee's covenant :4. They will use the demised premises for running factory and/or their office p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR90(Cal)
1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, this court has directed the Tribunal to refer the following question, sot out at page 2 of the application, for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the liability arising in the relevant previous year under the Payment of Gratuity Act has to be allowed as deduction irrespective of the fact whether the assessee maintained an approved gratuity fund or not ?'2 In pursuance of our direction, the Tribunal has referred the aforesaid question for our opinion.3. The assessee is Anglo India Jute Mills Co. Ltd., and the assessment year involved is 1982-83. The assessee is a manufacturer of jute goods and claimed the deduction of Rs. 19,48,050 as contribution to the approved gratuity fund for the year. Apart from above, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 3,11,036 as actual payment of gratuity. The Assessing Officer found that when the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dabur P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR301(Cal)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was wrong in directing the Assessing Officer under Section 263 of the Act to invoke the provision of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the expenditure on calendars, panchangs and diaries 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the expenditure on calendars, panchangs and diaries should be regulated only under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in that view directing the Assessing Officer to ascertain the cost of each articles in tender (intended ?) for prescription and regulate the expenditure in accordance with Rule 6B 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›