Kolkata Court June 2002 Judgments
Rajat Tarafder and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ153CAT
1. Four applicants have filed this OA seeking directions to the official respondents to cancei/set aside or quash the impugned order of readiness and call letters dated 16.2.2001 and 5.3.2001, Annexures 'A/5' and 'A/6' and also to call the applicants for the post of Technicians (Electrical Gr. B).2. The short facts of the case are these. The applicants are Electrical Khalasi in the scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- under Senior Section Engineer/Diesel/Baliaghata in the Sealdah Division of the Eastern Railway. They are Matriculate and have passed the relevant Fitter Trade and obtained NCVT certificate under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The promotional channel for the applicants is the post of Electrical Fitter which is now known as Technician (Electrical Gr. III) in the scale commencing from Rs. 3050/-.The Railway Board issued circulars dated 28.9.98 and dated 28.1.2000, wherein it was stated that the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Skilled Artisans (inc...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Charan Majhi Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT238(HC)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The pension has not been paid to the petitioner despite orders passed by this Court holding the petitioner entitled to it. In the circumstances this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner within three months from the date of communication of this order. Such pension is to be paid, as admissible inlaw, to the petitioner. If finalisation of the calculation cannot be made within the said time, in that event provisional pension shall be made available from the said date for the current period onwards subject to payment of regular pension. In no even, regular pension shall be deferred beyond six months from communication. All arrears are to be paid within three months from finalisation together with Interest at the rate of 12% simple p.a. on the arrear till it is paid. In case, it is not paid in that event, the amount of pension payable to the petitioner shall be paid to the petitioner after deducting the said amount from the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Amaresh Choudhury Vs. Gopinath Kundu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT535(HC)
Girish Chandra Gupta, J. 1. This was an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying inter alia for appointment of a Receiver and an order of injunction in a dispute arising out of a partnership. When the application was moved an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to receive, try and determine this application was raised whereupon the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for liberty to file a supplementary affidavit in order to bring on record thata part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court as also to include a prayer for leave under Clause 12 of the letters patent. Such leave was granted. A supplementary affidavit filed affirmed by one Sri Amaresh Chaudhury on 23.4.2002. Even after filing of the supplementary affidavit the learned advocate appearing for the respondent pressed his point with regard to want of jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining this application. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!Lalu Alam Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALT(Cri)2,(2002)2CALLT540(HC),2002(3)CHN301
P.K. Biswas, J. 1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner, namely, Lalu Alam seeking to set aside the order dated 6th December, 1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 7(5)/1992 by Shri S. Gupta, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for deferring the cross-examination of P W 1, the victim of this case until the remaining eye witnesses were examined-in-chief.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this revisional application are as follows :The present petitioner along with 6 others were placed on trial in Sessions Trial No. 7(5)/1992 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (S) to answer charges under Sections 307/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code upon an allegation that on 16th August 1990, there was a call for 'Calcutta Bandh' by the Congress(I) Party. In support of the said call for bandh. Miss Mamat...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Shaw (Wine) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Cal)528,[2003]260ITR513(Cal)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J. Submission on behalf of the petitioner 1. The notice dated March 27, 2002, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'I. T. Act'), being annexure P2 to this petition, seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1995-96 is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the said notice on various grounds. The notice that has been issued is subject to a proviso to Section 147 since issued four years after the end of the relevant assessment year and as such is incompetent and without jurisdiction. Until it is shown that the income sought to be assessed had escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to make a return or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, it cannot be reopened. The reopening could be made only if the authority is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment. Though...
Tag this Judgment!Tantia Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)171CTR(Cal)419,[2002]257ITR84(Cal)
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This writ petition was filed challenging the notices dated July 18, 1994, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1984-85, 1987-88 and 1989-90 and the proceedings relating thereto.2. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the said notices on the ground that the requirements under Section 147 have not been satisfied and therefore, such notices issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year in each case, are time barred as in the present case for each of the years there was assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Income-tax Act.3. It is contended that the impugned notices were issued for reopening the assessment in view of the explanation of the law in the case of CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. : [1993]204ITR412(SC) , holding that the civil contractor engaged in various activities such as construction of dams, canals, bridges, buildings, roads and other si...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Biri Factory and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT555(HC),[2003(97)FLR55],(2003)IILLJ138Cal
P.K. Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The order of reference made by the Government of West Bengal referring the dispute to the tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act has been challenged in the instant writ petition by the petitioners herein. 2. Petitioners are engaged in the trade of manufacturing and sale of 'Biri' and have claimed that in their usual course of business, they do not engage any employee/home worker/Biri roller for manufacturing or rolling Biris at their Biri factory or industrial premises. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that they get supply of rolled unbranded Biris from their Biri suppliers or independent contractors with whom the petitioners entered into agreements for getting supply of unbranded Biris. According to the petitioners, the said Biri suppliers or independent contractors have their own separate business and industrial premises wherein they manufacture Biris by employing their own labourers or workers. It has been specifically...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›