Kolkata Court February 2002 Judgments

Makhan Bala Middya and Etc. Etc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Etc ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2002Cal162,(2003)1CALLT68(HC)

ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. All the writ petitions are arising out of a common question i.e. grant of freedom fighters' pensions. Therefore, all the writ petitioners were directed to be taken for an analogus hearing to avoid proloxity and multiplications of proceedings. Although the common question is in respect of grant of freedom fighters' pensions but cases are categorised into three categories (a) cases which have been recommended by the State and accepted by the Union but subsequently refused to grant pension: (b) Cases recommended by the State accepted by the Union but later turned down by the Union; (c) Cases which have not yet been considered or recommended by the State or nipped in the bud for any cause which according to them are not fit and proper.2. In most of the cases I find that those are related to District Midnapore, State of West Bengal leaving aside few others. The Court cannot avoid but to take judicial notice that District Midnapore of the State of West Bengal was hot ...

Fabrimetals Vs. United Bank of India

Court: Kolkata

ORDERBhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against Order No. 21 dated 30-1-1997, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) thereby rejecting an application for correcting the deposition of DW-1.There is no dispute that in the proceedings before the DRT, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have disputed the claim of the Bank by filing written statement as well as affidavit on evidence. Defendant No. 5 deposed as DW-1 on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5.2. It appears from the record that in answer to the questions put to the said witness, the learned Trial Judge, inter alia, recorded the following three sentences :'I cannot say if the claim of the bank is correct or not. I cannot say off hand the exact amount of debt due to the bank from the Respondent No. 1. We have paid nothing against the claim of the bank.'3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application alleging that the evidence recorded by the Tribunal below did no...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No. 2)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]2534ITR503(Cal)

1. This is a tax reference which the Revenue got referred by the Tribunal through the intervention of the High Court. Three questions have been referred to us, all for the assessment year 1988-89 and those three questions are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing a sum of Rs. 8,29,723 as revenue expenditure ? 2. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the claim of Rs. 36.77 lakhs under Section 32AB and Rs. 1,28,960 under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs, 35.11 lakhs, made to the value of closing stock and whether the findings leading to the conclusion are otherwise unreasonable and perverse ?' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, the facts found by the Tribunal are that in regard to two new brand products of the assessee, viz., New Luxor and Rangoli,...

Suprabhat Steels Ltd. Vs. C.E.G.A.T.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2002LC323(Calcutta),2002(144)ELT500(Cal)

Amitava Lala, J.1. This matter is fixed today under the heading 'Application' for the purpose of passing certain orders in connection with notice of attachment issued under Rules 9 and 10 of the Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for Recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995.It appears to this court, as argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the same has been issued from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Gaya, Bihar. Panchnama in respect of Attachment of Movable Property was also of the appropriate officer, Central Excise Division, Gaya. The inventory was also made there. Therefore, the petitioners cannot get any relief in connection with the application as well as the main writ petition within the jurisdiction of this Court.2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended before this Court that the application is in the nature of interlocutory application but as and when the main writ petition w...

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)3CALLT145(HC),2002(146)ELT522(Cal)

A. Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made, inter alia, praying relief in the nature of writ of mandamus commending the respondents, their servants, agents, subordinates and/or assigns to act and proceed in accordance with law in respect of the present investigation being conducted by them against the petitioner No. 1 and in the event any central excise duty is found payable by the petitioner No. 1 to issue show-cause notice or notices-cum-demand in accordance with law and adjudicate the case or cases after giving all reasonable opportunities to the petitioners of being heard in the matter. The consequential reliefs are sought for in respect of the alleged exercising coercion, undue influence, torture and/or from taking any steps prejudicial to the rights, interest and liberty of the Officers, Directors and Chairman of the petitioner No. .1, company in any manner whatsoever. 2. A writ of certiorari is also asking for production of documents relating to evasion of Central Excise duty bein...

Cit Vs. Berger Paints (India) Ltd. (No. 2)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]254ITR503(Cal)

This is a tax reference which the revenue got referred by the Tribunal through the intervention of the High Court. Three questions have been referred to us, all for the assessment year 1988-89 and those three questions are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing a sum of Rs. 8,29,723 as revenue expenditure 2. Whether, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the claim of Rs. 36.77 lakhs under section 32AB and Rs. 1,28,960 under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 35.11 lakhs, made to the value of closing stock and whether the findings leading to the conclusion are otherwise unreasonable and perverse ?'2. So far as the first question is concerned, the facts found by the Tribunal are that in regard to two new brand products of the assessee, viz., New Luxor and Rangoli, the as...

Amal Kumar Sarkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ272CAT

1. The dispute raised in this O.A. is whether the respondents are entitled to realise the "damages" for unauthorised occupation of quarter beyond the admissible period after retirement by the applicant from his Dearness Relief on Pension.2. The applicant was working in the office of India Audit & Accounts Department as Senior Auditor, Calcutta. He retired from service on superannuation w.e.f. 31.5.88 and after his retirement he has been granted all his retiral benefits including pension and he has been receiving the same regularly.3. While he was in service, he was allotted a Govt. accommodation viz.Flat No. 161, Block-AF, Type-Ill, Salt Lake City, Calcutta. After his retirement, he was allowed to retain the said quarter for the admissible period. According to the applicant, he retained the said quarter even thereafter and vacated the same on 31.8.89. However, this contention of the applicant is disputed by the respondents and according to them, he vacated the said quarter on 14.1...

Gouranga Lal Chatterjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]253ITR678(Cal)

ORDERAsok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Tender evaluation Committee recommending the acceptance of the tender submitted by the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as the 'private respondents) in respect of Construction of Belghoria Express Way, Package II. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the tender submitted by the private respondents does not conform to the requirements stipulated in the Instruction to the Bidders (hereinafter to as the said ITB). It was submitted by the petitioner that the tender of the private respondents should have been rejected as non responsive by the State if the conditions of ITB were adhered to.2. The material facts of the case are as follows :Both the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are Class I Contractors and empanelled with the Public Works Department and other organizations.3. A pre-qualification notice was sent to the petitioners inviting proposals from them for short list...

S. Sajappan and anr. Vs. Municipal Council and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)2CALLT34(HC)

S.K. Mukherjee, J. 1. This is to consider an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ('writ petition' in short) filed by the writ petitioners alleging, inter alia, that although they have been discharging the functions of Lower Grade Clerks ('LGCs' in short), they are paid in the grade of Dally Rated Majdoors ('DRMs' in short).2. The writ petitioners, namely, Sajappan and Karma Runda, were appointed as DRMs, by the Municipal Council, Port Blair and it has been alleged by them that from the date of their appointments they have been discharging the duties of LGCs. The writ petitioners in support of their allegations annexed certain documents as annexures-C and F to the writ petition Indicating that they have actually discharged the functions of LGCs inasmuch as they were engaged for preparing Salary Bills, Over-Time OTA Bills, Leave Salary Bills and other allied works assigned by the Head Clerk concerned. From the Note-Sheet, annexed as annexure-C, it appears that the ...

Prodyot Kumar Chatterjee and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)3CALLT291(HC)

P.K. Ray, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.2. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-(a) A writ and/or in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents and/or each of them, their servants, agents, subordinates and associates thereby restraining them from causing any investigation in pursuance of the purported FIR No. 138 dated 25th July, 2001 lodged by the respondent No. 4.(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent and/or each of them their servants, agents, sub-ordinates and associates to refrain from causing any harassment or arrest of the petitioners or the family members of the petitioner No. 1 without obtaining leave of this Hon'ble Court.(c) A writ of and/or in nature of Certiorari directing and/or commanding the respondents and/or each of them, their agents, servants, subordinates and associates to transmit all the records relating to this case after certifying the ...