Kolkata Court May 2001 Judgments
Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Janardhan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR75],(2001)IILLJ1588Cal
Hrishikesh Banerji, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated April 28, 2000, passed by a learned Judge of this Court in the writ application being C.R. No. 8201 (W) of 1994 upholding the order dated December 17, 1993 passed by the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. 2. Respondent No. 1, Shri Janardhan Singh was employed as member of the security staff in the factory owned by Hindustan Motors Ltd., the Appellant herein at Hind Motor in the District of Hooghly, West Bengal. His services were terminated by a letter of dismissal allegedly for certain misconduct. 3. By an order of reference dated March 18, 1987 the dispute was referred by the State Government to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal ('the Tribunal' for short) under Section 10 read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, called 'the 1947 Act').4. Inspite of service of Notice the parties did not appear and a 'NO DISPUTE' award was made by the Tribunal in terms of Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Trading Co. Llc Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(132)ELT578(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner have asked for a Writ of Mandamus directing and/or commanding the respondents to make payment of the containers detention charges in respect of the containers being Nos. CRXU 4638054 and POCU 1197581 and the Port charges in respect thereof for the period on and from 19th August, 1997 until re-export thereof.The fact of the case is not disputed much and is stated hereunder in short.2. The writ petitioners carry on business of import and export in United Arab Emirates. During June, 1997 the writ petitioners shipped two consignments of Ball Bearings for Nepal as its final destination, transiting through India via Calcutta Port. The said Ball Bearings, which were in containers, arrived at the port of Calcutta during the 1st week of July, 1997, and immediately after landing, the consignment was seized by the Customs authorities under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. The importer namely M/s. Nitu Enterprises by a letter ...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.i. Limited Vs. the Property Company Private Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT132(HC)
G.C. De, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th January 2000 passed by Smt. A. Roy Saraswati, Civil Judge (Senior Division) Fourth Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South) in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1998. By the said judgment the trial Court dismissed the Misc. Case filed by the present appellant R.S.I. Limited under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 and 101 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The case of the appellant-petitioner is that it is a Company registered under Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 1, Bishop Lefroy Road. P.S. Bhawanipur, Calcutta 700 020 and it was Inducted as a tenant in respect of the eastern part of the ground floor of premises No. 1, Bishop Lefroy Road, P.S. Bhawanipur, the details of which are given in Schedule 'B' to the application in the year 1977 at a monthly rental of Rs. 6000/-inclusive of service charges. The possession of the tenanted portion was given in 1978 and rent receipts were issued in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(79)ECC531,2001(133)ELT280(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made by the petitioner company and one of its Directors by saying that the Circular bearing No. 23/99 dated 11th May, 1999 or Paragraph 4 of the said Circular being annexure 'DD' to the petition be quashed and/or set aside. It is also prayed thereunder that DEPB (Duty Exemption Pass Book) Licences being No. 0210005970/3/06/00 being annexure 'C' to the petition be returned to the petitioner and to allow benefit of the scheme to the petitioner or its transferees. The similar benefit of DEPB Licences also claimed in respect of Nos. 121000490/3/06/00, 0210005508/3/06/00, 0210005514, 1210005642/3/06/00 being annexure 'F collectively to the petition.2. According to the petitioner company on 30th June, 1999 they have exported certain goods known as 'Steel Welding Electrodes'. Consignments were provisionally assessed and 'let export' orders were passed. The exports of consignments were made under Duty Exemption Pass Book (DEPB) scheme under which t...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Narayan Sarangi and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT341(HC),2001(3)CHN487
P.K. Samanta, J.1. Short but important question involved in this writ petition is related to the interpretation of Rule 14(b) of the Rules regulating the recruitment and leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal thereinafter referred to as Rule. 1991).2. The said Rules 1991 were framed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under sub section (1) of section 106 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 for the purposes of prescribing conditions for appointment of teachers and other staffs in primary schools and for other allied matters as mentioned in Clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 60 of the said Act. Therefore, the aforesaid Rules, 1991 have the force of law as the same were framed in due observance of the procedures prescribed under section 106 of the said Act.3. The Rule 14(b) of the said Rules, 1991 which is the particular rule for the present purpose reads as under:-Rule 14(b) :- The council may appoint Primary Teachers with the approval of ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Niwas Birla and ors. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR598(Cal)
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. On December 1, 1976, an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax for the assessment years1972-73 and 1973-74 holding that the Health Resort Trust, of which the petitioners are trustees, was a public charitable trust exempt from income-tax under the provisions of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), setting aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer for the said trust was formed for the benefit of the trustees and employees of the Birla group of companies.2. In spite of the said appellate order which was binding on the Wealth-tax Officer who was also acting as the Income-tax Officer, he issued a notice under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, on the ground that wealth-tax was leviable on the trust property since exemption under Section 5(1)(i) meant for public charitable trusts was not available because of the user of the trust property by the trustees thereby attracting the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Bireswar Sirkar Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR693(Cal)
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. The question involved in this application whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit under the amnesty scheme for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82.2. The facts of the case are as follows :The petitioner was an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The petitioner duly filed his wealth-tax return for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1981-82. The Wealth-tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the WTO'), assessed the wealth of the petitioner at a higher amount quantum than what was declared by the petitioner in the said returns. The petitioner duly preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT (A)'). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after hearing the parties passed a consolidated order on August 30, 1984, setting aside the said assessments with a direction for fresh assessments. 3. It was specifically stated by the said Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) th...
Tag this Judgment!Partha Pratim Nandi and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT502(HC)
1. This matter has been moved upon notice and Mr. R.N. Das, learned Advocate, has appeared along with Mr. Yatindra Nath Gupta, on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. The matter may, therefore, be treated as ready as regards service and having regard to the facts involved, we are also of the view that no useful purpose could be served in keeping the matter pending and the same may be disposed of even at this stage without filing of the affidavits.2. The subject matter of the present writ application is an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, Bench on 19lh September 2000 in O.A. 979/2000.3. The case as made out by the writ petitioners is that pursuant to an Employment Notice dated 1st March 1996, being annexure-A to the writ application, they had applied for being selected for the post of Safaiwalas. The method of applying, as indicated in the said Employment notices, was that apart from the applications of the candidates whose names had been sponsored by the...
Tag this Judgment!Paharpur Cooling Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Cal)303,[2001]252ITR48(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. On an application under Section 256(2), this court has directed the Income-tax Tribunal to refer the following questions, set out at page 7, for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the estimate of advance tax filed by the assessee under Section 212(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, filed on December 15, 1977, is a valid estimate in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dated May 25, 1977, passed under Section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid in law ? 3. Whether in arriving at the conclusion and finding the Tribunal has ignored any relevant material or has relied on irrelevant material and whether such conclusion and finding is otherwise unreasonable and perverse ? 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 273(1)(a) of the Act ?' 2. In compliance with the direction of this court the aforesaid questions are referred fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saroj Kumar Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-2001
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Cal)616,[2005]279ITR573(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated May 22, 2000. The main grievance raised in this appeal that the Tribunal has committed a mistake by treating Rs. 8,00,00,000 as capital receipt and not a revenue receipt.2. The assessee filed return on August 28, 1996, declaring total income of Rs. 21,95,010, and subsequently filed a revised return disclosing taxable income of Rs. 21,96,555. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has disclosed a sum of Rs. 8 crores as receivable from Gillette Company, U.S., by virtue of 'non-compete agreement' dated January 18, 1996, the assessee claimed that it should be treated as capital receipt arising from the assessee's intellectual rights and as there was no cost to that asset there cannot be any capital gain tax also. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee. He treated that amount as a professional receipt. In appeal before the C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »