Kolkata Court April 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Sandeep Jajodia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Cal)17,[2004]268ITR494(Cal)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The assessments for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 in respect of the respondent/assessee were computed under Section 16(3) of the WT Act, 1957, on 29th April, 1986 and 22nd Aug., 1986, at a net wealth of Rs. 12,57,100 and Rs. 12,35,900 respectively. The wealth assessed included the value of a flat situated at 1, Arcade, Nariman Point, Bombay, accepted by the WTO at Rs. 2,50,000. Subsequently, the assessee filed returns of wealth for the aforesaid years under the Amnesty Scheme on 29th April, 1986, disclosing certain additional wealth in the shape of jewellery, silver utensils, ornaments and a half share of a house property at 1/17, Shantiniketan, New Delhi. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued under Section 17 of the WT Act and fresh assessments were completed on net wealth of Rs. 18,60,800 and Rs. 18,94,200 respectively on 19th Nov., 1986.2. Subsequently, the CWT, West Bengal IX, Calcutta, initiated action under Section 25(2) of the above Act to revise the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Cwt Vs. Sandeep Jajodia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-2002
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN46(Cal)
Altamas Kabir, J. The assessments for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 in respect of the respondent/ assessee were computed under section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, on 29-4-1986 and 22-8-1986, at a net wealth of Rs. 12,57,100 and Rs. 12,35,900 respectively. The wealth assessed included the value of a flat situated at 1, Arcade, Nariman Point, Bombay, accepted by the Wealth Tax Officer at Rs. 2,50,000. Subsequently, the assessee filed returns of wealth for the aforesaid years under the amnesty scheme on 29-4-1986, disclosing certain additional wealth in the shape of jewellery, silver utensils, ornaments and a half share of a house property at 1/ 17, Shantiniketan, New Delhi. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act and fresh assessments were completed on net wealth of Rs. 18,60,800 and Rs. 18,94.200 respectively on 19-11-1986.2. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, West Bengal IX, Calcutta, initiated action under section 25(2)...
Tag this Judgment!PulIn Behari Sardar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ189CAT
1. Shri Pulin Behari Sardar, EDBPM, District-24 Parganas (South) has filed this O.A. against his non-reinstatement as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) after acquittal by the appropriate Court from the charges made in criminal cases. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) For an order directing the respondents to re-instate the applicant in his former post of EDBPM Joynagar, Majilpur, 24-Parganas immediately with all consequential benefits. (b) For an order directly the respondent to treat the enter period i.e. from 9.11.1979 till the date of re-instating in his former post as EDBPM service for all purpose." 2. The fact of the case as it appears from the O.A. is that the applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch, Post Master (EDBPM) w.e.f. 19.6.1976 at Dara EDSO (Annexure-A). The petitioner has been performing his job satisfactorily and sincerely. There was constant persecution of the applicant by certain interested group who were active to impl...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kabita Mukherjee Vs. Mr. Padam Chand Banthia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT83(HC)
Amitava Lala, J.1. On 2nd August, 2001 an ejectment decree alongwith various other reliefs were granted by this Court. One of such reliefs was in the nature of preliminary decree as regards fixation of mesne profits. An advocate-Commissioner was appointed. However, such advocate-Commissioner was replaced by other.2. The original judgment and decree was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court. However, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree of this Court was confirmed. A special leave petition was also moved before the Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed.3. As a result whereof, excepting passing a final decree on the basis of the report to be furnished by the advocate-Commissioner in respect of the claim of mesne profits no other purpose is left for hearing.4. Presently, there is an application on the part of the defendant taking exception to the report filed by the advocate-Commissioner. If the petitioner/ defendant herein becomes successful, the same wi...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kamalesh Adhikary Vs. DakshIn Damodar Cold Storage Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT188(HC)
Amitava Lala, J. 1. On 30th March, 1999 a decree was passed by this Court in the undefended suit. For the purpose of placement of suits under the heading 'undefended suit' in the Court of Law one has to cross various procedural avenues laid down under Original Side Rules of this Court. Such Rules are pari materia with the Code of Civil Procedure. Sometimes Court directs to place the matter under the heading 'undefended suit' under very special circumstances. Unlike the District Courts, regular cause lists are printed from which one can see that suits or proceedings are reflected in such lists. Under normal courses of proceeding, the suit has to be placed in the prospective list, thereafter in the warning list and lastly under peremptory list of the Judge. Even where, the Court directs to place the matter under 'undefended suit' Court has to be satisfied with the test of service on the basis of the certificates to be issued by the Registrar/Deputy Registrar/ Deputy Sheriff etc. There is...
Tag this Judgment!Hindusthan Mitra Club and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT515(HC),2002(4)CHN1
A.K. Ganguly, J. 1. The writ petitioner No. 1 is a club known as Hindusthan Mitra Club (hereinafter referred to as 'said club'). The said club is a society registered under Societies Registration Act and the writ petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are members of the said club. The writ petitioners have challenged a show cause notice dated 22nd February 2000 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Lalbazar, Calcutta-700 001, to the General Secretary of the said club. In the said show cause notice the General Secretary of the said club has been directed to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice why the allotment of the tent of the said club in the Calcutta Maidan shall not be cancelled and failing which a decision will be taken by the police authorities on the basis of available records. 2. On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner prayed for time and thereafter, time was granted to the petitioner to give reply to the show cause notic...
Tag this Judgment!Dipak Dutta and Pralay Sinha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT12(HC),[2004]121CompCas516(Cal),(2004)187CTR(Cal)14,[2004]268ITR302(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. Both the matters were analogously placed. In both the matters notices under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been challenged. The aforesaid notices dated 6th March, 2002 were made requiring reason as to why the taxes should not be realised personally from them giving a date of hearing. Therefore, in effect, the petitioners challenged the show-cause notice under writ jurisdiction of the Court. Under normal circumstances writ Court does not interfere with the show cause. But element of interference is available hereunder.2. The petitioner (in each writ petition) contended that he was a nonexecutive Director of the respondent No. 4 Company inducted in the capacity of a Chartered Accountant. They were never involved in administering the day-to-day business of the respondent-Company. In early 1993 the Board of Directors was reconstituted in view of the change of management of the company. The petitioners resigned from the directorship. At the time of resignati...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Jasnani and anr. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT581(HC)
Amitava Lala, J. 1. This writ petition relates to a dispute relating to stallage charges Imposed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authority. The notice impugned is dated 12th December, 2001. From the notice I find that the vertical extension of the 1st floor and 2nd floor of the concerned stall measuring 290.56 sq. feet and 308.36 sq. feet respectively will be regularised subject to payment of the scheduled charges as has been envisaged with appropriate circular 10 of 1999-2000 dated 7th August, 1999 from the date of completion of the work on 12th January, 1980. Schedule charges are as follows:(i) Stallage will be levied 2/- per sq. ft. per month for 606.92 sq. ft. from12.1.80 to 31.12.2001 (251 month 20 days)3,05,471.98(ii) Premises of 100months enhanced stallage @ Rs. 1213.84 per month1,21,384.00Total4,26,855.982. By challenging the aforesaid notice learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made two fold submissions. Firstly, the claim raised by the authority is barred by li...
Tag this Judgment!Bata India Limited Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ716Cal
1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned single Judge dated March 17, 1989, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and held that the petitioner was covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948).2. Brief facts, which are necessary for disposal, are that the appellant/petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated June 7, 1976, and sought for a writ of mandamus against the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the aforesaid order or implementing the same. It is alleged that the Head Office of the appellant-petitioner is situated at No 30, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, and its sales organsiation is situated at No. 6A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Calcutta. The factories' Head Office and Sales Organisations are completely distinct and separate organisations under the organisation set up of the Company. Bata India Limited has three factories at Batanagar, Batagunge...
Tag this Judgment!Saloo Choudhury and anr. Vs. Nissan Europe N.V. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: III(2007)BC595,(2004)3CALLT392(HC)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. Defendant 3 in the suit has filed this application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiffs under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and also for dismissal of the suit.2. The case made out in the plaint is this:The plaintiffs are motor enthusiasts and rallyists. In 1989 they circumnavigated the glove in a Contessa car manufactured by Hindustan Motors, an Indian company.3. The circumnavigation was recorded in the Guinness Book of Records as the first and fastest one. Since a British Army team broke their record, in 1991 they undertook the circumnavigation for the second lime, and this time in a Nissan Sunny Car manufactured by Nissan Motors (GB) Limited (defendant 2). They set up a new record, which was entered in the Guinness Book of Records as the fastest circumnavigation round the world by car. Although the plaintiffs became well known globally, and were sought after for endorsement and promotion, particularly in relation to automobiles, they however, by choic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »