Kolkata Court March 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Surendra Paul (Karta of Huf)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: [2002]256ITR173(Cal)
1. In respect of two different assessees the same two questions have come up for answer by us. The questions are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee had no right or claim over the amount of Rs. 18,32,426 brought in the books of account on March 31, 1973, of the firm in which he was a partner till March 31, 1972, when the amount in question, was earned by the firm prior to March 31, 1972 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no nucleus of the partnership property in the impugned sum of Rs. 18,32,426 brought into the books of the firm on March 31, 1973, when the said sum was earned by the firm during which the assessee was a partner in the firm ?' 2. Before we proceed any further we make it clear that in the last part of the second question the word 'which' should be struck out and after the word 'dur...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Monorama Devi and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ278,(2002)2CALLT167(HC)
I. Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 26th May, 2000, passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Burdwan, dismissing the application of the appellants for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being MAC Case No. 180 of 1998.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly as follows:- One, Mono) Kumar, hereinafter referred to as the victim, was the driver of truck bearing the Registration No. HR 29/CA-0549, of which the Respondent No. 2 is the owner. The said truck No. HR 29/GA-0549 was covered by a policy of insurance issued by the Respondent No.l, which included third party risks.3. The victim was. as driver of the said truck No. HR 29/GA-0549, driving the said truck from Sahapur to Kolkata. On the way, the victim had to stop the said truck No. HR 29/GA-0549 on Grand Trunk Road, near the Rasulpur level crossing in Burdwan district. 4. A speeding truck from the opposite direction, the Registration number...
Tag this Judgment!Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs. Central Government ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ293Cal
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyav, J.1. The petitioner bank filed this writ petition challenging the validity and/or legality of the award dated December 20, 1999 passed by the learned Judge of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta. By the said award, the learned Judge of the Tribunal held that the respondent Shri Chhabi Ghosh comes within the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the action of the management of the petitioner bank in terminating the service of said Shri Chhabi Ghosh was bad, illegal, inoperative and void ab initio. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed the petitioner bank to reinstate said Shri Chhabi Ghosh forthwith in service with full back wages from the date of termination along with all consequential benefits.2. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the facts of the matter are shortly narrated hereinafter.3. Shri Chhabi Ghosh, the respondent No. 3 herein was initially appointed as a clerical staff by the then M...
Tag this Judgment!Cgt Vs. Surendra Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Cal)212
In the Calcutta High Court Ajoy Nath Ray & Maharaj Sinha, JJ.Judgment By the courtIn respect of two different assessees the same two questions have come up for answer by us.The questions are as follows :1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee had no right or claim over the amount of Rs. 18,32,426 brought in the books of account on 31-3-1973 of the firm in which he was a partner till 31-3-1972, when the amount in question, was earned by the firm prior to 31-3-1972 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no nucleus of the partnership property in the impugned sum of Rs. 18,32,426 brought into the books of the firm on 31-3-1973, when the said sum was earned by the firm during which the assessee was a partner in the firm ?'Before we proceed any further we make it clear that in the last part of the second question the word ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinwara Engineers Private Limited Vs. Amitava Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT253(HC)
A.K. Bisi, J.1. The instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the petitioner is directed against Order No. 15 dated 16-1-2001 passed by the leaned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 9th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in T.S. No. 1 of 2000. By the impugned order the learned trial Court rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant/ petitioner.2. The facts leading to the instant revlsional application may breifly be stated thus, The defendant/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has arisen out of the suit for recovery of khas possession, mesne profits and damages valued at Rs. 30,200/- i.e., Rs. 7,200/- for recovery of khas possession, Rs. 10,000/-as mesne profits and Rs. 13,000/- as damages tentatively. It has been contended by the defendant/petitioner that in a suit like the present one a landlord cannot claim mesne profits for any ...
Tag this Judgment!Manoranjan Pramanik and ors. Vs. Gourhari Pramanik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT553(HC)
N.C. Sil, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by Shri Milan Chatterjee, learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore on 4.7.1997 in connection with Title Appeal No. 33 of 1996 affirming the judgment and decree dated 9.1.1996 passed by Shri G. C. Sarkar, learned Assistant District Judge, Tamluk, Midnapore in connection with Title Suit No. 90 of 1993.2. The suit before the trial Court was for declaration and pre-emption alternatively for partition. The trial Court was pleased to decree the suit which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.3. Three plots namely plot No. 1307, measuring 32 decimal of Bastu land, plot No. 1303, measuring 7 decimal 'doba' (small pond) and plot No. 1297 measuring 16 decimal of tank are the subject matter of the suit. Those properties were owned and possessed by two brothers Rakhal and Bankim along with other co-sharers. It is claimed that those three plots are the undivided family dwelling house of those tw...
Tag this Judgment!Dey's Medical Stores Manufacturing Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India (U ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR2504,(2002)2CALLT352(HC),2002(2)CHN655
A.K. Banerjee, J. 1. Dey's Medical Stores Manufacture (U.P.J Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner company') is a small scale industrial unit by virtue of a certificate granted by the Directorate of Industries, Government of Uttar Pradesh on March 9, 1981. The petitioner company is a manufacturer of various drugs and cosmetics having its undertaking at Uttar Pradesh. 2. On August 28, 1987 Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 was promulgated by the Union of India. According to paragraphs 28 of the said Order of 1987 Central Government by a notification dated October 16, 1987 exempted drug manufacturing unit registered as SSI Unit from operation of paragraphs 9, 11 and 22 of the said Order of 1987 subject to three conditions :- '(i) Unit to be an independent unit and not subsidiary unit owned or Controlled by any other undertaking which is not exempted from application of the 1987 Order; (ii) Formulations to be marketed by the concerned unit in their own brand name/trade mark...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjan Kr. Agarwal Vs. Cesc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT274(HC)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. The application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, registered as W.P. No. 13215(W) of 2000, has been filed by five persons, jointly, as petitioners, against 'Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited' (in short 'CESC') and its two Officers.2. Premises No. 159, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 017 is a twelve storeyed buildings. M/s. Onkarmull Goenka, a registered partnership firm, is the owner of said multi-storeyed building. The firm let out different portions of the building to tenants. CESC had been supplying electricity to consumers of the building. The firm was one of the consumers. Sri Onkarmull Goenka, since deceased and Sri Prahalad Rai Goenka, his son, both of whom were partners of the firm, were also consumers of CESC in their individual capacities. As tenants under the firm in the building, all the petitioners used to consume electricity supplied by CESC to the firm and three other consumers through four meters against four consumer numbers. For...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. Director of Entry Taxes and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT395(HC)
Amitava Lala, J.1. By this writ petition 42 writ petitioners are largely affected on account of non-payment of refund. All of them have made a joint writ petition after making an appropriate Court Fees through Smt. Sanghamitra Bhattacharya, an advocate of this Court appearing with Mr. Gopal Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. The Advocate-on-Record of the petitioners is Ms. Debmoti Roy Choudhury. Mr. Chakraborty has categorically contended before this Court that Smt. Bhattacharya is actually the Power of Attorney holder in respect of receiving the refund on account of the petitioners on the basis of the Power of Attorney but the authority refused to refund the respective amounts through her.2. Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing of behalf of the respondents, contended that letters were sent by registered post with A/D but those were returned by saying 'not claimed'. In one of such cases, no such building exists where the office of such petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchanjanga Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shivarpan Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: [2004]119CompCas712(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The applicant, Kanchanjhanga Commotrade (P.) Ltd. ('applicant'), the second highest bidder in respect of sale of land including cottage, pond, boundary wall, machine and equipment and office furniture of Spawk Engineering (P.) Ltd. (liquidation) as ('the company in liquidation') filed this application for setting aside the sale in favour of respondent No. 1 which was confirmed by the company judge by an order dated March 26, 1999.2. The relevant facts of the case are that an advertisement was inserted on March 4, 1999, by the official liquidator (hereinafter referred to as O/L) in The Telegraph for sale of assets and properties of the company in liquidation.3. In connection with the said sale, the applicant made an offer to the official liquidator for purchasing the aforesaid property of the company in liquidation which was advertised for sale. The offer of the applicant was for an amount of Rs. 45,000. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the court for sale ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »