Kolkata Court July 2001 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Estate of Omprakash Jhunjhunwala

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]254ITR152(Cal)

1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions set out at page 2 of the paper book :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is the owner of the superstructure at 7, Pretoria Street, Calcutta, though the land over which the superstructures was built was taken on long lease ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in directing to treat the rental income from the property at 7, Pretoria Street, Calcutta, assessable under the head 'Income from house property' and not under the 'Income from business' taken by the Assessing Officer ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in directing to assess the consideration received by the assessee against the sale of first floor together with the proportionate interest in law (land ?) ...

Terai Overseas Limited and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Customs and or ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT83(HC),2001(3)CHN352,2002(79)ECC415,2001(134)ELT337(Cal)

1. The question that falls for determination in this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether theauthorities concerned were justified in classifying 'necktie' exported by the writ petitioner as 'made-up articles' thereby placing it under Heading No, 6203(c) of drawback table.2. The fact giving rise to the Instant writ application may be summarized thus:The petitioner exported two consignments of gents' 'necktie' with full length made of polyester fabric with different prints and designs made of woven fabric. After exporting such goods, the petitioner filed a drawback claim aggregated Rs. 39,18,241/-. The petitioner however classified the goods under coverage of Heading No. 6204 on the ground that necktie is a species of readymade garments. On July 7, 1997 the petitioner received a notice asking it to explain why draw back rate should not be granted under Heading No, 6203 of drawback table which deals with made up articles. Ultimately, by order date Jan...

West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation Limited Vs. Union of India

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT315(HC)

S.K.Mukherjee, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a Judgment of affirmance is respect of suit for realisation of money.2. Money suit No. 16 of 1986 was instituted, on November 26, 1986 in the Court of the learned Munsif, First Court at Krishnagar, District: Nadia for recovery of compensation to the extent of Rs. 3329/- (Rupees three thousand three hundred twenty nine) only with interest at the rate of 12% percent per annum from September 28, 1982 till realisation thereof.3. The plaintiff/appellant in the plaint of the said suit alleged that the plaintiff is a Government Company having its registered office at 23/B, Netaji Subhash Road, 3rd floor, Calcutta-1, established for the development in agricultural sector in the State of West Bengal. The Rastriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited despatched a consignment of 1097 bags of suphala 15:15:15, each bag containing 50.2 Kgs., from Trombay, a station in the Central Railway, under Inv/RR No. 69/671499 dated September 8, 1982...

Jyoti Kumar Ganguly Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT413(HC)

R.K. Mitra, J.1. In this petition, prayer was made for the Issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to 'revoke the licence being No. MS-20 dated 02.01.2001 and give effect of the letter dated 14.6.2001'. The petitioner alleged that on July 2. 1997 the petitioner had made an application before the Motor Vehicle Department for being allowed to operate a Motor Training School in Dasnagar area or Andul area. The application, it would appear, had been rejected by the authorities in writing dated July 22, 1997. The petitioner was aggrieved and challenged the refusal in a writ application. The Court by an order dated September 29, 1997 gave directions for affidavits, and made an Interim order of status quo with regard to 'running a Motor Training School in the Howrah area'. The writ petition, admittedly was pending final disposal. According to the petitioner, in violation of the Court's order dated September 29, 1997 the Licensing Authority. Motor Vehicles Department, Howrah h...

Sujit Chatterjee Vs. Rita Chatterjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)3CALLT260(HC)

Asit Kumar Bisi, J.1. The instant revisional application under Section, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner against the Order dated 19.4.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat, in M. Ex. Case No. 50 of 97. By the impugned order the learned Court below rejected the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the petition under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the present petitioner who figures as opposite party in the said case before the learned Magistrate.2. The facts anterior to the filing of the revision application may briefly be narrated as follows:-The present O.P. No. 1 wife filed the petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code claiming maintenance before the learned Court below. The said maintenance case was ultimately heard ex-parte and by the order dated 3.6.97 passed in M. cases No. 169 of 1995, maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs. 800/- (Rupees Eigh...

Cit Vs. Estate of Omprakash Jhunjhunwala

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Cal)325

By The CourtOn an application under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred following questions set out at page 2 of the paper book :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is the owner of the superstructure at 7, Pretoria Street, Calcutta, though the land over which the superstructure was built was taken on long lease ?2. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in directing to treat the rental income from the property at 7, Pretoria Street, Calcutta, assessable under the head 'Income from house property and not under the 'Income from business' taken by the assessing officer ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in directing to the assessee the consideration received by the assessee against sale of 1st floor together with the proportionate interest in law under the...

Soorajmull Nagarmull Vs. Jute Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull, a registered partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as SN) challenging the judgment and order dated 16th July, 1991 by which a learned single Judge upheld an award dated 16th August, 1989.2. The material facts of the case are noted below :Six contracts were entered into by and between SN and Jute Corporation of India (JCI) for sale of jute by JCI to SN. Disputes and differences arose out of the transactions covered by those six contracts. The contracts are of diverse dates.3. However, one thing may be noted that the award which has been passed in this case is for a total amount of Rs. 73,18,668.02 p. only. Out of the said amount, Rs. 88,962.63 p. was awarded for the balance of unpaid price of jute supplied and delivered by JCI to SN. A total amount of Rs. 72,29,705.39 p. had been awarded towards the interest payable by JCI to its bank up to 30th June, 1989 for loans and advances obtained by JCI from t...

Shrimati Mukta Bala Dhara and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Zilla Parishad, H ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT350(HC)

S.K. Mukherjee. J.1. Title Suit No. 312 of 1979 was instituted in the Court of the learned Munsif at Uluberia, District: Howrah by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/appellants, Ashutosh Dhara, for a declaration that he was a permanent lessee in respect of suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents or employees from invading the possession of the said plaintiff.2. In the said suit the Chairman, Zilla Parishad, Howrah, the Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Howrah and the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Howrah were impleaded as defendants. Although summons of the suit were duly served on the defendants and although several adjournments were obtained by them for filing written statement, ultimately, the defendants failed to file written statement and on August 19, 1980 the suit was taken up for ex-parte hearing.3. By the judgment and decree dated August 19, 1980, the learned Munsif, on the basis of unchallenged oral testimony of th...

Chandraprabhu International Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT29(HC),2003(159)ELT39(Cal)

The Court 1. This is an application for setting aside and/or recalling of order dated 28th May 2001 passed by me in writ petition being No. 1047 of 2001. The impugned order was passed admittedly ex-parte. 2. Commissioner of Customs contends that the aforesaid order was obtained by the writ petitioner without serving any notice in consonance with Rule 26 of Rules of this High Court relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as a result whereof the respondent No. 1 applicant herein was denied reasonable opportunity of being heard as because of Short notice the respondent No. 1 was prevented from appearing at the time of hearing of the writ petition when the aforesaid impugned order was passed, 3. Mr Debal Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. Biswanath Samaddar learned advocate submits that in this case a notice was served at around 3 p.m. on Friday the 25th May 2001 with an intimation that the writ petitioner was to be moved on 28th May 20...

Krishna Kumar Singhania Vs. the Official Liquidator and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT91(HC)

The Court1. All formalities are disputed with. However, the department is to check up whether sufficient Court Fee having been paid for filing a review application or not. This application is for review of my judgment and order dated 3rd May 2001 whereby I dismissed the application of the review applicant, for recalling of earlier orders passed by Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose on 17th August 1999 and 14th September 1999 respectively.2. Narration of brief fact of this case is necessary for better understanding, though strictly speaking while dealing with a review application fact is hardly material.3. Usha Automobiles and Engineering Limited (In Liquidation) at the material time when the aforesaid orders were passed was under the process of completion of liquidation exercised by the official liquidator. Some of the properties were stolen. So a complaint was lodged by the official liquidator with the Gaziabad Police Station, Uttar Pradesh figuring review applicant as one of the suspected ...