Kolkata Court May 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.
Sekhar Chatterjee Vs. National Jute Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT204(HC)
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. The entire disciplinary proceedings as well as the order of the disciplinary authority affirmed by the order of the appellate authority were impugned before this Court in C. O. 8225(W) of 1987. The said writ petition was disposed of by Mahitosh Mazumdar, J. (as His Lordship then was) by a judgment and order dated 12th August, 1988, His Lordship held that the order of the appellate authority was bad in view of the Rule 32(II) and as such gave liberty to the petitioner to file a supplementary appeal before the appellate authority and directed the appellate authority to dispose of the same in terms of the said rules. The said order of His Lordship was appealed against by the writ petitioner. The Court of appeal by an order dated 14th June, 1995 upheld the order of the learned single Judge and directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the writ petitioner if filed in terms of the liberty granted by the single Judge.2. In terms of the liberty given by thi...
Makar Dhwaja Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT310(HC),[2002(95)FLR374]
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. The writ petitioner was a constable in the Railway Protection Force. He was charge-sheeted by the authority and proceeded departmentally. The writ petitioner ultimately suffered the order of removal from service.2. The charges framed against the writ petitioner are quoted below;'(1) Const. 8433 M.D. Das of DPS is charged for gross mis-conduct, neglect of duty, failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and commission of an offence in that he while on duty at beat Nos. 4, 5, 6 of DPS yard from 12.00 hrs. to 24.00 hrs. on 29.4.94 some outsiders trespassed into the yard which was very much within his knowledge inasmuch as that he allowed them to commit theft of nut coke coal from the coal rake of train No. E/ BSPX Spl. stabled at line No. 6 within his duty hours which was subsequently seized and recovered by OC/DPS on 30.4.94 weighing approx. about 22.5 Qtls who Regd. case No. 5/94 date. 30.4.94 and thereby aided and abetted the commission of theft and...
Bharat Hari Singhania (individual) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Cal)659,[2002]257ITR80(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and the vires of Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). The short facts are stated here-under :The petitioner is a wealth-tax assessee and also a partner of a partnership firm, namely, J. K. and Sons (hereinafter referred to as 'the said firm'), which at the relevant time was an existing and going concern and the same was not dissolved. The dispute in the writ petition related to the assessment and imposition of wealth-tax, therefore, for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, for which the relevant valuation dates were April 13, 1983, April 1, 1984, and March 21, 1985, respectively. In the wealth-tax returns for the three assessment years, the petitioner disclosed his interest in the said firm, valued on the basis of the difference between the debit balance and credit balance of the petitioner in the books of the firm in the capital an...
Rawatmall Mohanlal Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Cal)425,[2004]269ITR420(Cal)
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dt. 16th July, 1976, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition' and held that the notice for reopening of the assessment of the incumbent for the year 1958-59 under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961), is valid.2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a notice was issued on 25th March, 1975, under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for the year 1958-59. The previous reopening order was set aside by the Tribunal. It is alleged that sanction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) was obtained on 22nd March, 1975, for this second reopening notice. The previous reopening of the assessment was done, on the basis that there was hundi loan credits in the names of various parties who were known as name lenders. In the original assessment, loan credits from these ...
Rawatmall Mohanlal Vs. Ito
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2002
Reported in: [2004]136TAXMAN140(Cal)
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16-7-1976 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and held that the notice for reopening of the assessment of the incumbent for the year 1958-59 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) is valid.2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a notice was issued on 25-3-1975 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment for the year 1958-59. The previous re-opening order was set aside by the Tribunal. It is alleged that sanction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the CBDT) was obtained on 22-3-1975 for this second re-opening notice. The previous reopening of the assessment was done on the basis that there was hundi loan credits in the names of various parties who were known as name lenders. In the original assessment, loa...
Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Joint Development Commissioner
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: 2002LC325(Calcutta),2002(144)ELT515(Cal)
ORDERDilip Kumar Seth, J.1. The Subject:The proceeding under the Excise Act was initiated under Section HA against the petitioner company having its office at Calcutta in respect of certain excise duty payable on account of certain transactions carried out at Raipur and Nagpur Units of the Company.Submission on behalf of the Petitioners :2. The writ petitioner had contested the said proceeding, which resulted in demand. Against the said demand, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the CEGAT, Bombay. Ultimately, the said proceeding before the CEGAT, Bombay was transferred to CEGAT at Calcutta. The learned Cousnsel for the petitioners contended that the demand was raised not on the units but on the company, which had its office at Calcutta. He further contended that different units of the petitioners are spread over all over India. But the excise demand is raised on the company. Therefore, he contended that by reason of the transfer of the proceeding to CEGAT at Calcutta in resp...
S and D Securities Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC99,(2003)1CALLT608(HC)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. The writ petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the petitioner company) and the writ petitioner No. 2 is one of the directors of the petitioner company. The petitioner-company is a registered stock broker and is a trading member of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (hereinafter called NSE).2. The respondent No. 5 is also a company, registered under Companies Act and it has opened an account with the petitioner-company.3. The petitioner's case is that in the year 1996 under instruction from respondent No. 3, the petitioner-company opened an account being No. K005 in the name of the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, in 1997 respondent No. 3 introduced his son, the respondent No. 4, and on their joint requests, the petitioner-company opened another account being No. S025 in the name of respondent No. 4 with respondent No. 3. The further case of the petitioner-company is that on 17th April, 1999 in terms of instruction g...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›