Kolkata Court March 2002 Judgments
Partha Tapaswi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ276CAT
1. The question to be considered in this OA is whether the applicant has a right of appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the basis of his selection by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC despite the fact that new Recruitment Rules have come into force.2. The facts first. The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and he joined on 19.10.84. He was appointed as Public Prosecutor on deputation basis in the CBI w.e.f. 7.8.95 after his selection through the UPSC of a period of four years or until further orders. When the applicant was on deputation with the CBI, the Deptt. of Personnel and Training, Govt.of India issued a vacancy circular inviting applications for the post of Senior Public Prosecutor (Sr. PP) in the CBI on deputation basis or on transfer basis video Memo dated 7.9.98. The applicant having the requisite qualification and having fulfille...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Binani Zinc Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)84ITD691(Kol.)
1. In this appeal, directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 18th August, 1999 for the assessment year 1992-93 solitary grievance of the revenue is as follows :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 58,80,502 made by the A.O. under Section 154 (of the Income Tax Act, 1961) holding it to be a nonexistent liability due to reduction of customs duty which was allowed by the A.O. in the original assessment.2. In order to properly appreciate the legal controversy requiring our adjudication, it is necessary to take a careful look at the undisputed facts of this case as also the developments leading to this litigation before us. During the previous year relevant to the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. assessment year 1991-92, the assessce company incurred a liability to pay custom duty of Rs. 5,77,05,178 but till the due date of filing relevant income-tax return under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereina...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sankar Ghosh and ors. Vs. Sri Rakshit Kumar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT147(HC)
N.C. Sil, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.1998 and 30.6.1998 respectively passed by Sri M.K. Chowdhuri, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas in connection with Title Appeal No. 48 of 1997 reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1996 passed by Sri A.N. Roy, learned Munsif, Second Court, Diamond, Harbour in connection with Title Suit No. 53 1987. 2. It appears from the record that the suit before the learned Munsif was for declaration and injunction. The learned Munsif was pleased to dismiss the suit on contest while the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and having allowed the appeal decreed the suit. 3. The plaint case in brief is that the properties in plot Nos. 839 and 840 originally belonged to four brothers namely Ganesh, Priyanath, Sitanath and Lalmohan Ghosh. There was no partition of the suit plots amongst the four brothers. Suit plots consist of plot Nos. 831, 832, 833 and...
Tag this Judgment!United Bank of India Vs. Nalini Kanta Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT242(HC),2002(2)CHN396,(2002)IIILLJ388Cal
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. In this Letters Patent appeal the Judgment and order dated September 8, 1995 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court is under challenged.2. The respondent No. 1 in this appeal, Nallni Kanta Ghosh, moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as writ petition in short), inter alia, challenging the order of the bank directing him to retire from service on and from November 1, 1993 and to direct the bank to continue him in service till the attainment of 60 (sixty) years of age.3. United Bank of India Limited was a banking company. The writ petitioner was in employment of Government of West Bengal and he applied on June 4, 1969 for appointment as an Officer of the Bank. United Bankof India Limited offered him appointment in Officer Grade II contained in a letter dated July 15, 1969. Paragraph 14 of the said letter of offer ran as under :'14. Please sign and return the duplicate (enclosed) of this letter of appointm...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Braja Kishore Roy and Sri Nitai Das Roy and anr. Vs. State of West ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT559(HC)
K.J. Sengupta, J.1. These two matters can be disposed of by one judgment.2. It appears from the records that Brajakishore Roy filed the aforesaid writ petition being CO No. 13545(W) of 1993, alleging non-compliance of the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Sealdah, by Narkeldanga Police Station. Learned Executive Magistrate Sealdah passed an order directing police official to hand over possession of Flat No. 1 in the ground floor of premises No. 142, Raja Dinendra Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said flat) to the writ petitioner Brajakishore. So, by an order dated 13 February, 1998, Hon'ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose disposed of this writ petition directing the police authority amongst other to hand over the key to the writ petitioner. Incidentally, it is to be noted that Netaidas Roy is not a party to the writ petition of Brajakishore. As the police did not carry out the order of Hon'ble Justice Ghose. contempt proceedings was initiated by Brajakishor...
Tag this Judgment!Polar Pharma India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT51(HC),2002(83)ECC594,2002(143)ELT511(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J. 1. Under this writ petition, the petitioners basically challenged the notice being File No. 20/596/am-96/EPCGI 2532 dated 11th October, 2001 by which concerned office of the Director General of Foreign Trade (hereinafter called as DGFT), Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi informed the company Noida at their office in Uttar Pradesh calling them to submit upto dated export statement for giving benefit of extension of export obligation period under public notice No. 3 dated 31st March, 2001.2. The petitioner having its office at Noida, Uttar Pradesh submitted to the said DGFT at New Delhi by making a representation giving details of ground for export obligation period under the aforesaid public notice. Even similar appeal has been made by the Chemical and Allied Products Promotion Council to such DGFT at New Delhi.3. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by saying that they are carrying on business from their regi...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoka Marketing Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT495(HC)
Amitava Lala, J. 1. This writ petition is made by the pen of one of the Directors of the petitioner company. From the record I do not find any affidavit of competency. 2. According to the petitioner, the moot point of moving this writ petition is that the notices issued under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 both dated 12th February, 2002 in connection with theproceedings for assessment year 1975-76 shall be cancelled, withdrawn and rescinded by the order or orders of this Court. 3. On 31st October, 1975 the petitioner company filed a return of Income for the assessment year 1975-76 showing the income of Rs. 47,480/-. On 11th October, 1977 the petitioner company filed a revised return showing a loss of Rs. 5,55,770/-. On 5th October, 1978 a draft order of assessment was sent by the Income Tax Officer under Section 144B, then existing, as the variation proposed to be made by the Income Tax Officer exceeded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On 18th October, 1978 the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Sailesh R. Shah Vs. the Intelligence Officer, Ncb, Eastern Regional Un ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT573(HC)
D.P. Sengupta, J.1. This is an application for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 36/2000 arising out of Crime No. 6/NCB/Cal 2000 under Section 9A/25A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).2. The aforesaid case originated from the seizure of 158.1kg. of white crystalline substance believed to be Ephedrine Hydrochloride recovered from inside room No. 5 of 109 Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta-1, which belonged to one Sirish Doshi and one Prayin Chandra Mehta @ Pravin Bhai Mehta. On the same date, i.e., on 20.6.2000 some officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau searched the office-cum-godown of the present petitioner at 59A Rash Behari Basu Road, Calcutta-1 and seized some purchase and sale vouchers relating to Ephedrine Hydrochloride.3. The present petitioner, namely Sailesh R. Shah was arrested on 20.6.2000 along with two other accused persons namely Pravin Mehta and Vinod Jain. All the three accused persons were produced before ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kumar Agarwala and ors. Vs. KelvIn Jute Company Limited Worker ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ564Cal
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. The Facts 1. Kelvin Jute Mills Company Limited had two units viz. Kelvin Jute Mills and Kelvin Broadloom Division. Hooghly Mills Company Limited took over Kelvin Broadloom Division. Kelvin Broadloom Division is known as Waverly Jute Mills Company. Thus, the two units of Kelvin Jute Mills Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as Kelvin) became separated from each other w.e.f. June 30, 1986, the date when Hooghly Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Hooghly Mills) took over Kelvin Broadloom Division known as Waverly Jute Mills Company, (hereinafter referred to as Waverly). The provident fund account of Kelvin, prior to transfer of Waverly, was a fund exempted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act). The said fund was managed by Kelvin Jute Mill Co. Ltd.' Workers Provident Fund Trust, (hereinafter referred to as Kelvin Trust). The said fund consisted of the provident f...
Tag this Judgment!Prokash Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ93CAT
1. The applicant, Ex-Fitter under SCW/Chitpur, has, by means of the present application, challenged the Order dt. 21.2.94 passed by the appellate authority, pursuant to the direction issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 687 of 1990 decided on 23.8.93, by which the appeal of the applicant against his removal from service was rejected.2. The service of the applicant was terminated on the ground that he assaulted one Shri A.C. Burman, Supervisor and there by causing injuries to him on account of which he had to be hospitalised for many days and even thereafter, he could not resume duty for a considerable period. The removal order was passed by the disciplinary authority after dispensing with the requirement of holding a regular enquiry under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). It may also be incidentally pointed out here that the applicant had not made any challenge to the original Order dt. 2.7.86 passed by the disci...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »