Kolkata Court May 2001 Judgments

Bhattacharyya Brothers and ors. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal arising out of order dated 20.12.2000 and 29.12.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, in O. A. No. 4/1997 deals with a very short aspect but at the same time a critical aspect of the claim case pending before the Tribunal.2. It is the case of the appellant who was the defendant in the claim case that no opportunity was given to them to cross examine the witness of the Bank who gave evidence on the basis of affidavit. It is also alleged that enough opportunity has not been given to the defendant to file affidavit evidence. It is further alleged that defendant Nos. 8 and 9 who are already dead have not been substituted by incorporating the legal representatives and, as such, the final order to be passed in the claim case will be infructuous.3. The appeal is being resisted by respondent Bank, who is contesting the appeal by filing a written objection denying all allegations and stating that the defendants were killing time and dela...

United Bank of India Vs. Ramdas Mahadeo Prasad and ors.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. Two appeals being A-23/2000 and A-6/ 2001 were heard in analogous since they arose out of the same judgment and order dated 7th of July, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer. D.R.T.-l, Calcutta, in T.A. No.106/1996. In A-23/2000 the United Bank of India is the appellant while they were the petitioners in the Tribunal below. In A-6/2001 the appellants are opposite parties in the claim cases in the Tribunal below.2. Earlier the United Bank of India filed suit before the Civil Court for realisation of certain sum of money alleged to have been put to the opposite parties but were not repaid by them. After the promulgation of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act the said claim was automatically transferred to the Tribunal from the Civil Court. Thereafter, the matter was heard when both the sides examined one witness each besides filing certain documents. The learned Presiding Officer after considering the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the to...

Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Cal)303

ORDERS. Bandyopadhyay, A.M.The first ground in this appeal filed by the assessee relates to the disallowance of an amount of Rs. 10,041 being of the nature of local conveyance expenses, but considered under section 37 of the Act as guest house expenditure.2. The assessing officer discusses in this connection that the total expenditure on guest house maintenance was Rs. 24,96,062. Besides maintenance, depreciation, repairs, etc. this aggregate amount includes also the local conveyance of Rs. 10,041. The Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed the appellate ground in this regard by simply commenting that local conveyance was in respect of staff of the guest house and hence is required to be disallowed.The assessee agitates against the above disallowance.3. The learned counsel for the assessee strongly contends that the local conveyance expenses cannot be considered to be expenses incurred for or in connection with the maintenance of the guest house.4. We are, however, not in agreement with...

Poddars Electronics Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank and 5 ors.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, dated 23.10.2000 in T.A. No. 347 of 1995 by which the learned Presiding Officer refused to set aside the ex-pane order passed by him.2. The case of the appellant who was defendant No. 4 in the original suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is that he was not aware of the filing of the suit till 25.11.1998 when he came across a paper publication whereby his knowledge about a suit by the Bank drawned. It is the further case of the appellant that no attempt was made to serve notice of the suit on the appellant and, as such, the substituted service effected by publication is not in accordance with law. It is their further case that on getting the information from the newspaper, he at once contacted a Lawyer and after inspection of the record, application was made for certified copy of the impugned order on 7.12.1998. He got the certified copy on 10.12.1998 and thereafter filed a Misc. Case...

Allahabad Bank Vs. Globe Paper Mills Ltd. and ors.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal arises out of order dated 5.3.1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Calcutta, by which the payer regarding non-payment of fee contained in the application made by the appellant Bank was rejected.2. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed alleging that the impugned order is bad in law since the appellant Bank already paid Court-fees in accordance with rules while they filed the claim case before the Civil Court which was later decreed. Since the decree was not executed and in the meantime, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act came into force the appellant Bank had to file an application before the Tribunal under Section 19 praying for execution of the decree of the Civil Court in accordance with law. But the learned Presiding Officer, on the basis of the report of the learned Registrar of the Tribunal, directed payment of the fees in accordance with Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) ...

Allahabad Bank Vs. Bharat Re-rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

1. The appeal arises out of order dated 23.6.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in O.A.Case No. 133 of 1999.2. The applicant Bank filed a claim case before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and in the said claim case filed a composite application containing two prayers namely, prayer for temporary injunction and prayer for appointment of Receiver so far as it relates to the property of the opposite party mortgaged/hypothecated to the Bank as security for the loan. The learned Presiding Officer after hearing the parties rejected the prayer on merit as well as on technical ground.3. He is of opinion that no case has been made out for injunction as well as appointment of Receiver, since there is no reasonable cause for apprehension in the minds of the appellant-petitioner. Being aggrieved the appeal has been preferred alleging that the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer is not in accordance with law and that he was not right in basing his de...

Kanoi Paper and Industries Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)75TTJ(Cal)448

ORDERS. Bandyopadhyay, A.M.In the assessment order in this case addition of an amount of Rs. 3,06,006 in respect of late payment to the provident fund account of the employees was made presumably by taking recourse to the provisions of section 43B and section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The amount under consideration seems to be consisting of two portions, viz., employees contribution portion and the employer's contribution portion.The addition was upheld in first appeal.2. So far as employer's contribution is concerned, an appellate ground taken up as ground No. 1 in this appeal filed by the assessee has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal before us. Hence, this particular ground has been dismissed.3. However, the assessee strongly objects to the addition of the portion representing employees' contribution to the provident fund. It is contended that the payments of wages/salary pertaining to a particular month are being made in the n...

Sri Kamalesh Kumar Thakur Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT490(HC),2001(3)CHN780

D.P. Sengupta, J. 1. The present revisional application is directed against an order dated 6.12.2000 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in G.R. No. 34/2000 pending in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta. 2. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the present petitioner under section 156(3) Cr.PC. before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta which was forwarded by the learned. Magistrate to the officer-in-charge Muchipara police station for investigation, a case was registered being Muchipara P,S. Case No. 2 dated 4.1.2000 under section 406/420/467/ 468/471/120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation made in the said First information Report is that the complainant's firm deals tn finance business and on 25.6.98 one TapanSarkar entered into a hire purchase agreement with the complainant's firm for purchasing a Taxi bearing Registration No. WMT 4631, Engine No. 6ED 029539 and Chassis No, 111 574716 on an initial paym...

Prasenjit Sengupta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT505(HC)

P.K. Samanta, J. 1. In the writ petition question arises for determination is whether the provisions of Rule 4(e) of the Recruitment Rules Providing Procedure for Recruitment of Teaching and Non-teaching staffs of Secondary Schools as framed by the Director of School will have application upon the enforcement of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 (hereafter called as the Act of 1997).2. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as Act of 1963) Empowered the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the said Act. In particular Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act of 1963 provided for making rules by the State Government in the matter of composition, Powers and functions of Managing Committees of Institutions. In exercise of such power under section 45 of the said Act of 1963 the State Government framed Management of Recognised Non-government Institution (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter c...

Sarkar Enterprise Vs. Garden Reach Shipbulders and Engineers Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2002Cal65

ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 34 of the Act speaks for certain conditions under which the recourse of the Court against an arbitral award may be obtained by way of making an application for setting aside the arbitral award. At the inception it is to be said that unlike the Arbitration Act, 1940, scope and ambit of setting aside the Arbitrator's award under the new Act is very limited. It operates as good as decree. Therefore, the Court would be very slow in interfering with it unless an exceptional circumstances exists which can lead to a position of nullifying the claim. This is settled principle of law that unless and until the award seems to be bad from the fact of it, it should not be interferred with as an appeal from such award to adjudge the mental process of the Arbitrator. Such well settled principle of law practically codified by giving a rigid parameters of consideration under new Act so...