Kolkata Court April 2002 Judgments
Dipak Dutta Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2002
Reported in: [2004]134TAXMAN533(Cal)
Both the matters were analogously placed. In both the matters notices under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 196I have been challenged. The aforesaid notices dated 6-3-2002 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 non-executive 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 resignation, the fiscal position ...
Tag this Judgment!Samar Sanyal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ168CAT
1. This is application for restoration of O.A. 972/ 91 which was dismissed on 11.6.98 for non prosecution on the basis of the statement made by Mr. N.C. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was no longer interested in the matter. The applicant has filed another MA bearing No. 634/01 for condonation of delay in filing the MA for restoration of the O.A. 972/91.2. It has been averred that the applicant had not instructed his advocate to state that he was not interested in the matter and he was always in touch with the advocate, but there was temporary communication gap in the middle of June, 1998 when the learned Counsel for the applicant got annoyed and made certain submission before the Tribunal. It has been further averred that after the applicant came to know about the fate of his O.A., he approached his Counsel Shri N.C.Chakraborty and obtained a copy of the order dated 11.6.98 on 1.9.98.Thereafter, on the advice of the said advocate he filed O.A. 1107/9...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Enterprises and ors. Vs. C.M.C. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT353(HC)
J.K. Biswas, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order passed by a learned judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition which was filed at the instance of the appellants and in which an order dated 15th January, 1999 passed by the Hearing Officer-XIII of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') was challenged. The order of the Hearing Officer was regarding intermediate revaluation of land and building of premises No. 99C, Garpar Road,Calcutta-700 009 (in short 'the said premises') w.e.f. 3rd quarter of 1997-98. 2. The order dated January 15,1999 passed by the Hearing Officer is quoted herein below: 'A.R. appears today. Notice has been served duly to the new owner. No objection raised previously has been met up. Seen letter of authority and objection. Seen I.B. also. Heard both sides. C.M.C. is represented by A.A. The premises is newly purchased at deed value of Rs. 15,00,000 / -. There is however, no change in use and occupation. It ...
Tag this Judgment!General Industrial Society Limited (Cotton Mills Division) Vs. Mongday ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR1074],(2003)IILLJ439Cal
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 23, 1995 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned single Judge rejected an application for recalling of the judgment and order dated January 31, 1992 holding, inter alia, that no ground, much less, satisfactory ground has been established for recalling of the said judgment and order dated January 31, 1992.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal is summarised as under:Mongdayal Prasad (writ petitioner in short) was in employment at Cotton Mills Division of General Industrial Society Limited (the Company in short),3. On December 24, 1974 the company issued a charge-sheet against the writ petitioner alleging disobedience of lawful and reasonable order of superior, habitual absence without permission and gross neglect of work. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation, but such explanation was not accepted by the company and on Januar...
Tag this Judgment!Monoharlal Dutt Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2634
ORDERPradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of Monoharlal Dutt, petitioner herein, seeking to quash the proceeding in M.P. Case No. 774 of 2002 pending before the Ld. Executive Magistrate, Howrah (Sadar) under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this revisional application are as follows :The petitioner herein had purchased the plot No. 1130 and other 14 plots of lands mentioned in paragraph 1 of his application of Mouza -- Sulati. P.S. Sankrail, Howrah by virtue of various valid deeds of conveyance.3. It has further been alleged that the wife of this petitioner Smt. Krishna Dutt is the absolute owner of Plot Nos. 529. 1203 and 1225 of Mouza Sandipur, P.S. Sankrail, Howrah by virtue of her purchase by diversed deeds.4. It has further been alleged that after their purchase, the petitioner developed the said plot, of land and those have been divided in...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopeswar Prasad Agarw ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT473(HC),2002(2)CHN552
A. Kabir, J.1. Claiming to be a co-owner by purchase, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition, being W. P. No. 19158 (W) of 1998, challenging the Requisition and subsequent Acquisition of R.S. Plot No. 462, pertaining to Khatian No. 276 of Mouza - Mandalganthi, P.S. Rajarhat, District - 24 Parganas (North) on several grounds.2. It was firstly contended that the requisition and acquisition proceedings in respect of the plot in question had been commenced and completed without notice to the petitioner, who was one of the co-owners therein. It was also contended that the requisition and acquisition of the plot in question was not for any public purpose within the meaning of Sections 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'Act II of 1948'.3. The third ground taken on behalf of the writ petitioner was that the order of requisition was bad since the object of such requisition was of a permanent and perennial nature, although, th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Vir Singh Vs. Sabyasachi Sengupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT56(HC)
K.J. Sengupta, J.1. All the three matters have the common origin, as to question of payment and non-payment of the claims and dues of the writ petitioner in terms of the Order dated 9th May, 1996, passed by B.P. Banerjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) in C.O. No. 6681(W) of 1996. The first two matters are contempt application of the allegation of non-compliance of subsequent Orders dated 4th August 1998 and 9th December 1998 passed in the contempt proceedings itself. The third application is for appropriate Order and/or direction upon the BOrder Security Force (BSF) authorities for supply of necessary funds for payment of interest. Before I consider the applications for contempt and the above application, I for the convenience sake narrate the short fact.2. The land with structure comprised of the premises No. 20/1, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta was acquired by the then First Land Acquisition Collector for the requirement of the BSF authorities, under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadamba Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Birla Corporation Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT87(HC)
J.K. Biswas, J. 1. The defendant No. 1 in a pending suit is the appellant before us. Before we go into the merits of this appeal, let us first dispose of the application for leave to appeal without the certified copy of the impugned order. 2. After hearing the parties we are satisfied that it is a fit case where leave to appeal is required to be granted. Accordingly, we grant leave to the appellant to file the instant appeal against the impugned order in terms of prayer (a) of the application. 3. When some argument was advanced on the question of grant of interim relief, the learned counsel for the parties submitted before us that the appeal itself could be heard out and disposed of by treating the same as on day's list. Accordingly, we discharge the appellant from the undertaking made under prayer (a), and by consent of parties we treated the appeal as on the date when the application for grant of interim relief was listed for hearing and had taken up the same for hearing. 4. This app...
Tag this Judgment!Tirupati Fileres and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT95(HC),2003(155)ELT242(Cal)
K.J. Sengupta, J.1. This writ petition is directed against a communication and/or letter dated 8th October 1983, whereby the product of the petitioners namely, non-cellulosic synthetic wastes blended with viscose has been sought to be classified under item 18(III)(ii) of the first schedule to Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Initially the aforesaid product was classified, filed under item No. 18(III)(i) and he same was cleared upon payment of Excise Duty related to the aforesaid classification. In the affidavit-in-opposition the point of territorial jurisdiction has been taken. Admittedly the petitioner has its factory situated at Abu Road in the District of Sirohi in the State of Rajasthan and the higher rate of Excise Duty under different classification is sought to be levied at the factory of the petitioner situated at Sirohi, which situates outside the territorial limit of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. On the question of jurisdiction the petitioner has sought t...
Tag this Judgment!Kisanlal Sinha Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT128(HC)
P.K. Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner is an approved permanent Headmaster of Rahimpur Nabgram High School, an aided institution. The petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of the said school on 30th June 1978 and his appointment as Headmaster was approved on 30th November 1978.2. It has been stated by the petitioner that he has been working as headmaster in the said school till he was physically prevented from entering the school premises on 12th May 1995. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 10th May 1995 the said petitioner was physically assaulted by some anti-social elements under the leadership of three Assistant teachers of the said school just outside the school gate.3. The petitioner lodged FIR with the local Police Station immediately thereafter. On the same date, the petitioner also wrote a letter to the Secretary of the school intimating the aforesaid incident of assault. The petitioner also by a written communication dated 22nd May 1995 informed ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »