Kolkata Court July 2002 Judgments
Jagadhatri Trading Company and anr. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT365(HC)
P.K. Biswas, J.1. This is an application filed by the accused petitioners seeking to quash the proceeding being No. 24D of 1989 pending before the learned Magistratre, 3rd Court, Town Hall, Calcutta and/or setting aside the order dated 18.3.94 passed by Sri K.K. Bakshi, learned Metropolitan/ Municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Town Hall, Calcutta regarding framing of charge against the accused petitioners under Section 16[1][a][i] read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955.2. The short facts leading to the filing to the present revisional application are as under:On 1.8.89, Opposite party No.2, Food Inspector , Calcutta Municipal Corporation filed a complaint before the learned Municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Town Hall, Calcutta against the present petitioner under Section 16[l][a][i]/7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955') and the learned Magistrate on receipt of the same, took cognizance of the alleged o...
Tag this Judgment!Satyajit Guha Vs. Srimati Rati Sen Sharma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT415(HC)
N.C. Sil, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order No. 58 dated 11.3.2002 passed by Shri S. Neyogi, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, second Court, Hooghly in connection with Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2002 refusing to review the order No. 50 dated 7.12.2001 passed by him which arose in connection with Title Execution case No. 2 of 1997. The said Title Execution case arose out of Title Suit No. 61 of 1990. 2. A Title Suit being No. 61 of 1990 was filed before the learned Assistant District Judge, Hooghly who after hearing the parties passed the decree of eviction directing the petitioner/applicant to deliver clear, vacant and khas possession of the suit premises within 30.9.1996. The learned Judge also passed the decree of mesne profit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hooghly which as registered as Title Appeal No. 215 of 1996. In the said appeal the plaintiff/decree-holder/...
Tag this Judgment!Shri D.J. Sen and ors. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT139(HC),2002CriLJ4621
J. Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of the prosecution under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code being complain case No. 319/93 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas (S), Alipore. 2. On 29.3.93, the O.P. No. 2 as the complainant filed the aforesaid case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore under Section 380 of the IPC, making 13 persons including the petitioners as the accused. The learned CJM took cognisance and after examining the complainant and his witness he issued process under Section 380 IPC against the petitioners who are shown as accused Nos. 11, 12 and 13 in the petition of complaint. 3. In the aforesaid petition of complaint Sri S. Agarwala one of the Directors of a company, namely, M/s. Bengal Molecular Industries (P) Ltd. has alleged that the company has its factory at 233/A, Rai Bahadur Road. Calcutta-700053. Prior to 1...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rakesh Garg Alias Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT351(HC)
D.P. Sengupta, J. 1. In the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of proceeding being Special Court Case No. 11/98 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act pending in the Court of the learned Judge, Special Court (E.G.) Act, Jalpaiguri.2. Joygaon P.S. Case No. 37 dated 24.4.98 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the E.G. Act was registered on an allegation that a truck loaded with 120 quintals of rice was seized by police at Bhutan border. On demand the driver could not produce any valid challan for the possession and transportation of the said rice. No permit under Form 'D' as required by paras 8 and 9(1) of the W.B. Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1997 could be produced and as such the aforesaid case was registered for violation of paragraphs 8 and 9(1) of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Control) Order 1997.3. It is the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that rice was never procured from the State of West Bengal nor it was be...
Tag this Judgment!Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chandranath Chatterje ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)CHN676
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.1. Both these appeals arise against the order passed by a learned single Judge dated 11th May, 2001 whereby he disposed of two writ petitions, that is, W.P. No. 1077(W) of 1999 and W. P. No. 11986(W) of 1999. Both the writ petitions were clubbed up together as it involved common question of law, therefore both these appeals are also disposed of by common order.2. The only question which was pressed before the learned Judge was that the writ petitioners should be given the same benefit in terms of the decision of this Court given in the case of F. M. A. 346 of 1997. The question was, whether the petitioners are entitled to Industrial Dearness Allowance (I. D. A. for short) or Central Dearness Allowance (C.D. A. for short). The learned single Judge held that the respondent-Company in their return has not given any reason that why the benefit of the aforesaid judgment be not given to the writ-petitioners. It was only stated by the management in their affidavit-in-o...
Tag this Judgment!Usha MartIn Industries Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Kol.)574
The assessee has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1995-96 by which the finding of the assessing officer that the assessee was defaulter under section 201/201(1A) of the Act was upheld.On examination of the TDS certificate filed in Form No. 16A, it was noticed by the assessing officer that the leave travel allowance (in short 'LTA') which was being given by the assessee-company to its employees was claimed as exempted under section 10(5) of the Act. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee was not keeping supporting evidence of the journey conducted by the employees. The assessee submitted a copy of the proforma. which was being filled up by the employees at the time of receiving the LTA before the assessing officer. It was submitted that there is no such requirement under the Act or Rules to demand copies of the railway tickets from the employees. However, the assessing officer did not accept the contention...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Sikdar and ors. Vs. Hindusthan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ949Cal
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. 1. The six writ petitioners are the appellants before us. The appeal was filed against a judgment dated February 2, 2001 whereby a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the appellants' writ petition being Civil Order No. 948(W) of 1993. All the appellants are employees of Haldia Division of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Limited (hereafter referred to as 'the respondent corporation') located in Midnapore district of the State of West Bengal. Six separate charge-sheets all dated September 28, 1991, containing substantially identical allegations, were issued by the respondent corporation against appellants. The allegations made in the charge sheet issued against the appellant No. 1 are reproduced below:'It has been reported that Sri Tapan Sikdar, Sr. Operator, C/E No. 431/ 2120, Production Department HFCL, Haldia Division has committed following acts of misconduct in terms of Standing Orders, 1982 of HFC Ltd., Haldia Division. 1. Sri Tapan Sikdar, Senior Operat...
Tag this Judgment!Sambunath Sen, Proprietor, East India Glass Industries Vs. Employees' ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR810],(2003)ILLJ347Cal
Barin Ghosh, J. 1. The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated October 21/23, 1979 whereby a claim had been put forward on account of Employees' State Insurance for the period July 1, 1973 to September 23, 1973 and December 17, 1974 to January 14, 1975 as well as the order dated October 22, 1979 whereby a demand was made for payment of Rs. 10.072.50 on account of outstanding contribution towards Employees Provident Fund for the period July 1, 1973 to September 23, 1973 and December 16, 1974 to January 14, 1975 as well as the certificate issued by the Collector, 24-Parganas on November 29, 1979 for recovery of the said dues together with assessed interest of Rs. 3352/- and further interest on the principal at the rate of 6% per annum. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it has been contended by the petitioner that the claim on account of principal to the tune of Rs. 1072.50 is highly inflated and in point of fact for the period in question the liabili...
Tag this Judgment!Sajal Kumar Bagchi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ392CAT
1. The applicant, who is working as Lever man/Pointsman in Dankuni West Cabin under the Station Manager, Dankuni, Eastern Railway, has filed this O.A. challenging the order of the disciplinary authority dated 6.2.96 imposing a minor penalty of stoppage of increments on the applicant, the appellate order dated 15.10.96 and the order of the reviewing authority dated 3.2.97 rejecting the appeal/review petition filed by the applicant against the aforesaid penalty order.2. The applicant was served with a charge-memo for imposition of minor penalty on 2.1.96 (Annexure-A). The imputation of misconduct against the applicant was to the following effect:-- "Averted collision between 3133 UP and C-275 took place at DKAE on 17.12.95 during his duty hours as he reported to ASM on duty West Cabin from L.C. Gate about clearance of fouling Mark between UP HBC and UP Reversible Line without physically checking the same although he was asked to do so by ASM on duty." The applicant gave his explanation ...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Steamship Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)78TTJ(Kol.)154
1. The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dt.24th July, 2000, passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1997-98. 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case learned CIT(A) is not justified in holding that unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years upto asst. yr. 1996-97 can be set off against the income under the head "House property" and other source totalling to Rs. 32,44,130 as the business income after adjustment was determined at nil. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 to 1989-90 should be carried forward for further period of 8 years starting from the asst. yr. 1997-98 after adjustment of the unabsorbed depreciation with the income from house property and income from other source of this year." 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed original return on 18th Nov., 1997, declaring total los...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »