Kolkata Court July 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.
Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Kamal Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT4(HC),[2001(91)FLR778]
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 25th August, 2000 whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent No.4, the Disciplinary Authority to complete the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law and till disposal of the disciplinary proceeding, the respondent No. 2 was restrained to interfere with the proceeding initiated against the petitioner.2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Colliery Manager, Kendua D Colliery of M/s East India Coal Co. Ltd. and was posted at Kendua, Dhanbad, Bihar. Thereafter, he resigned and joined Marine Coal Co. Bengal (P) Ltd. After the passing of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act. 1972 the Government of India took over all the companies and formed Coal India Limited (hereinafter referred to as CIL) under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. After taking over of ...
Keshab Narayan Banerjee Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR888(Cal)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged a notice contained in annexure E to the writ petition at page 57. The said notice was issued under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that Section 263 applies only in respect of an assessment made by the Income-tax Officer. But it does not apply to any other order which is not related to an assessment and is carried on by an authority other than the Income-tax Officer. He then contends that Section 132(5) empowers such officers who are above Income-tax Officers and that under Sub-section (11) of Section 132 appeal is provided. In the present case, before Section 263 was resorted to, an appeal was already preferred. Therefore, until the appeal is decided, Section 263 cannot be resorted to. He then contends that Section 263 cannot be resorted to during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 132, Sub-section (11). Therefore, the said notice should be q...
imperial Calendar Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. S. Dasgupta, Assistant Labour ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ126Cal
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. An Award was passed on December 20, 1999 in case No. VII-116/96 by the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The operative part of the said Award reads as follows: '**** *** *** *** 12. I have already found that the order of dismissal of the workman is invalid as no charges could be proved against him for want of iota of evidence. That being the position the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service and he is entitled to back wages. The continuance of service of the workman after April 3, 1996 and entitlement to back wages after April 3, 1996 will depend upon the findings of legality, propriety and validity of closure of the Company by appropriate forum.' 2. On the ground that the said Award has not been complied with, there has been a breach of Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for which a complaint was lodged after obtaining sanction from the State Government under Section 34(1) of the said Act which i...
Niranjan Santra Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT559(HC),[2001(91)FLR426]
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. The writ petitioner was a constable in Central Reserved Police Force, he was served with a charge sheet. Charges stipulated in the said charges are set out as follows:ARTICLE-I 'That the said No. 861310112 const. Niranjan Santra of this unit who was attached with 40 Bn CRPF to perform duty in Transit Officer Mess, while functioning as Security aid in Transit Officers Mess, on 9/3/91, committed gross remissness and misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 read with rule-27 of CRPF Rules-1955, in that he left lines at about 1430 hrs. without obtaining any permission/leave from the competent authority. ARTICLE-II That the said No. 861310112 Const Niranjan Santra while functioning as Security Aid in Transit Officers Mess, committed on act of gross misconduct in that. After leaving 40 Bn Campus/lines without obtaining prior permission/leave from competent authority he on 9/3/91 went to Budha Jayanti Park and got involved ...
ZarghamuddIn Ansari (Anwar) Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT177(HC)
A. Kabir, J.1. The petitioner ts the proprietor of a transport business being carried on by him from 34/1, Ratu Sarkar Lane, Calcutta-700 072, under the name and style of Bombay City Transport Company.2. According to the petitioner, on 12th July, 1999, his vehicle No. WB-25-6101 started from Howrah for Nanded in the State of Maharashtra with a consignment of 123 sets of C.I. Valves packed in 174 boxes under lorry challan No. 4/093 dated 12th July, 1999. The said consignment had been purchased by M/s. Prashant Enterprise, Mumbai, from various dealers in West Bengal, namely, Khanra Engineering Works, Howrah; Samanta Brothers, Howrah; Sree BalaJI Enterprises, Howrah and the Calcutta Iron and Steel Company Pvt. Ltd., after paying 4% Central Sales Tax, as would be evident from the Bills and Invoices raised by the sellers who are all registered dealers. Under the instruction of M/s. Prashant Enterprise, the said Bills and Invoices were endorsed by the sellers in favour of M/s. J.R. Trading C...
Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]254ITR370(Cal)
Pinaki Chandra Ghooe, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition is a notice dated March 22, 1978, issued by the income-tax authorities for the assessment year 1969-70 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). According to the petitioner, the notice did not disclose the reasons for initiation of the proceedings.2. It is also submitted that the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1969-70 was made under Section 143(3) of the said Act, on February 28, 1972. The said assessment was set aside on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated June 20, 1972, and the assessment was again made on March 28, 1973.3. The controversy arose in the matter in respect of allowance of grinding charges for a sum of Rs. 5,34,349.55 paid by the petitioner to one Allied Industries and Commercial Corporation of Calcutta. According to the petitioner, the same were allowed in the assessment made on February 28, ...
Amena Bewa and ors. Vs. Tahir Sk. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT361(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition.2. Partition Suit No. 128 of 1976 was instituted in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Malda by the predecessor-in-interest of this appellants, Kaaur All Shaikh, alleging, inter alia, that 'ka' schedule properly originally belong to Amru Seikh. Amru Seikh died in 1973 leaving behind two sons, that is, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 and three daughters, that is, defendant No. 1, defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4. The heirs and legal representatives of Amru Seikh were in joint possession of the properties left by Amru Seikh. As amicable possession was no longer possible, the plaintiff demanded partition, but the defendants avoided. Moreover, the wife of defendant No. 2 gave out that there has been a deed in respect of the entire property and upon search in the registry office the plaintiff came to learn that Amru Sheikh executed an alleged heba-bil-ewaj in respect of 'ka' schedule property in fav...
Universal Paper Mills Limited and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Com ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT186(HC),[2001]106CompCas518(Cal),[2001(91)FLR591],(2001)IILLJ1193Cal
The Court 1. This is an application challenging the demand notices issued by the respondent authorities calling upon the petitioner No. 1 and its Director to make payment of a sum of Rs. 65,56,417/- on account of employer's contribution under the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and threatening to proceed against them under the provisions of Section 8B to 8G of the said Act and further the thereat of attachment in respect of bank account of the petitioner No. 1.2. The petitioner has challenged the said notice inter alia on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 is a sick company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as SICA Act) and further according to the petitioner, under Section 2(1) of the said SICA Act, 1985 when an inquiry under Section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation...
Md. Rafiqul Islam and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT331(HC)
1. By an order dated 29th June, 2000, all these appeals, along with the writ application filed by one Shri Tapan Kumar Dey [W.P. 7155(W) of 2000], were directed to be heard together. Accordingly, all these matters were taken up for consideration.2. At the very outset, however, Mr. P.N. Chatterjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 8, took a preliminary objection that notwithstanding the order passed on 29th June, 2000, the writ petition of Shri Tapan Kumar Dey could not be heard along with the appeals in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Nath Santra and Ors., v. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2001(1) CHN, page 649.3. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that in Ram Nath Santra's case the Division Bench had held that a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invariably to be heard by a single Judge at the first instance and by consent the parties could not confer upon the Division Bench jurisdiction which it d...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Magnets Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR471(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 questions for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of Explanation (b) below Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that under no circumstances the assessment order can be said to be erroneous in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the approval given under Section 35CCA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to the society for integral development could not be withdrawn retrospectively by the competent authority ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in cancelling the order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed by the Commissioner ?' 2. In compliance with our direction the aforesaid questions are re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »