Kolkata Court March 2002 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.
Ganesh Chandra Senapati Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT248(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. Only certain relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the instant writ application need to be stated. They are for filling up the post of an Assistant Teacher in Geography in Banlpur High School prior permission was granted by the DIS (SE), prescribing the qualifications as M.A. or M.Sc. In Geography along with B.Ed., PGBT or BT. Interview for the same was held on 27th May, 1997 in terms of the Recruitment rules which came into operation from December I, 1995. The panel prepared by the school authorities, was approved by the DIS (SE) on 20th October, 1997. It must be stated here that by the said order the panel prepared by the school authorities, which was in the following terms:Smt. Sarmila De Dalal-- 1st.Ajoy Dey-- 2nd.Ganesh Senapati (present writ petitioner)-- 3rd.was recast by the DIS (SE) by his order dated 20th October 1997 approving the panel in the following manner;Smt.Sarmila De Dalai-- 1st.ShriAjoy Kumar Dey-- 2nd.SamarChandra Samanta(privateresponden...
Jagannath Trivedi and ors. Vs. Smt. Nilima Dutta Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT247(HC)
A.K. Mitra, J.1. This second appeal is in connection with Title Suit No. 286 of 1978. When admitting the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 1.4.93 the Hon'ble Division Bench passed the following order:'This appeal will be heard on the points of substantial question of law taken in the grounds of Memorandum of Appeal. Call for the records and issue usual notices.'2. It appears from the office records that on 2.11.95 the appeal was made ready as regards service. It also appears from office note dated 3.2.97 that one learned advocate entered appearance on 4.11.95 by filing vocalatnama. The said learned advocate appearing for the respondents also deposited usual paper book cost on 18.12.95. Lower Courts records arrived and examined but from the office note dated 17.10.2001, it appears that one postal receipt being exhibit No.7 was missing. On 18.10.2001, Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay passed an order directing the department to find out whether this postal...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. General Electric Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Cal)1,[2002]255ITR22(Cal)
1. Six questions were sought to be got referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue. In regard to questions Nos. 2 to 5, the Tribunal refused to refer. In regard to question No. 1 a reference was made. In regard to the sixth question a reference was made also, but after the Tribunal had reframed the question itself.2. The first question referred is as follows ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 92,219 made under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules read with Section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'3. The sixth question as reframed and referred to us by the Tribunal is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the Modvat scheme of excise duty, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition by the Assessing Officer to the value of the closing stock ?'4. The problem with regard to the first question arises as follows. Claim ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›