Kolkata Court July 2002 Judgments

Sanjeev Killa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)1CALLT253(HC)

ORDERAsit Kumar Bisi, J.1. The petitioner/claimant has filed the instant application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') being A.P. No. 393 of 1998 praying for setting aside the award dated 28th February, 1998 passed by Sri A.K. Mukhopadhyay, sole Arbitrator in the matter of arbitration between Supply Emporium v. Union of India.2. The award in question has been challenged by the petitioner/claimant principally on the ground that the learned Arbitrator misconducted himself by not following the price of the goods as agreed upon between the parties as recorded In the contract and thereby erred in law in passing the award. The petitioner/claimant alleges inter alia that either in the counter-statement of claim or at the time of hearing before the Arbitrator the respondent did not dispute about genuineness of the purchase orders or about the inspection certificate or about the delivery challan or about the quality or quantity of the g...

Hindustan Consultancy and Services Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)2CALLT302(HC)

P.K. Chattopadhyay, J.1. Petitioners filed the instant writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings whereby the respondents had sought to acquire an area approximately 1000 sq. ft. in the North Western portion of the ground floor of premises No. 27 R.N. Mukherjee Road. The respondent authorities have invoked emergency powers under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') for the purpose of acquisition of the aforesaid 1000 sq. ft. area in the aforesaid premises. The said premises No. 27 R.N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta belongs to the petitioner No. 1 i.e. Hindustan Consultancy & Services Ltd.2. By the order dated 9th November 1949, a portion measuring about 1000 sq. ft. area of the said premises No. 27 R.N Mukherjee Road was requisitioned under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947. After requisition of the aforesaid portion at the said premises, the department of Post and Telegraph was put int...

Shyama Pada Mondal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ286CAT

1. This O.A. has been filed in the background of the following circumstances.2. The applicant was a railway servant and he retired as Senior Engineer from the Eastern Railway on 31-5-1992. The applicant was originally appointed in the Eastern Railway as Junior Clerk in the year 1958. However, from August 1981 to July 1989 he was in the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW) in the Senior Scale of Assistant Engineer.Before his retirement he had been served with major penalty charge-sheet in the year 1990. He was charged with offence of mis-conduct of grave nature that in his capacity as Member of Tender Committee/Accepting Authority he called tenders and instead of accepting the lowest tender he accepted the tender of higher rate. As many as five charges had been framed against him. He was granted provisional pension because of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. He challenged the disciplinary proceedings by filling O.A.No. 876 of 1992 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 1...

Tara Finvest Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

1. These two appeals are taken together in respect of asst. yrs.1993-94 and 1994- 95 relating to the same issue arising out of the common order dt. 26th July, 2000, by the CIT(A) wherein the assessee is in appeal raising the issue that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in considering the business of providing finance as its principal business in terms of Section 2(5B)(iv) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, as assessed by the AO under Section 8(3) of the Interest -tax Act.2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned AO in his order considered the financial statement of the assessee and in view of Section 2(5B)(iv) considers the assessee's income as business of providing finance whether by making loans and advances or otherwise.He, therefore, proceeded to consider his own application of mind in applying earning of interest as that of credit instituted as per Section 2(5A) of the Interest-tax Act. He, therefore, completed the assessmen...

Quraisha Bibi (Smt.) Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2003ACJ1942,[2002(95)FLR1179],(2003)ILLJ963Cal

ORDER11. For all these reasons, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. Let the Lower Court records, if arrived, be sent down forthwith. 14. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given within 7 days....

Tara Finvest Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)81TTJ(Cal)631

ORDERK.K. Gupta, A.M.These two appeals are taken together in respect of assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 relating to the same issue arising out of the common order dated 26-7-2000, by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the assessee is in appeal raising the issue that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the business of providing finance as its principal business in terms of section 2(5B)(iv) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974, as assessed by the assessing officer under section 8(3) of the Interest Tax Act.2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned assessing officer in his order considered the financial statement of the assessee and in view of section 2(5B)(iv) considers the assessees income as business of providing finance whether by making loans and advances or otherwise. He, therefore, proceeded to consider his own application of mind in applying earning of interest as that of credit instituted as p...

Quraisha Bibi Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: II(2004)ACC447

ORDER11. For all these reasons, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.There will be no order as to costs.Let the lower Court records, if arrived, be sent down forthwith.Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given within 7 days.Joytosh Banerjee, J.I agree....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ajay Forgings (P.) Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2002]257ITR572(Cal)

1. The single question referred to us is as follows :'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was wrong in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the issue for the assessment year 1986-87.'2. The accounting year of the assessee was up to June 30. The assessee received a debit note of Rs. 1,05,420 on July 15, 1984, but the assessee had claimed the deduction for the assessment year 1985-86, the previous year in respect whereof ended on June 30, 1984. The extra gap of one year from 1984-85, i.e, between the accounting year and the assessment year, occurred because the assessee's accounting year did not end with March 31.3. The Tribunal opined that the debit note being received 15 days after the end of the accounting year, it could not be claimed on a mercantile basis in respect of that previous year; its reason was that there cannot be a debt unless it is made known.4. We are quite in agreement with that line of reasoning and the Department also has not raised...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coventry Spring and Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Cal)579,[2002]257ITR632(Cal)

1. The question before us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be rectified under Section 154 after issue of notice under Section 143(2) ?'2. After the Assessing Officer issues intimation (under the old law then prevailing) under Section 143(1)(a), it is possible that both the Assessing Officer and the assessee pay nothing and the matter rests there.3. However, it was possible for the Assessing Officer to issue a subsequent notice under Section 143(2) and to hear the assessee further before finalising the assessment.4. However, the rectification procedure under Section 154 is not consistent with the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice. In this case apparently the Assessing Officer passed the order of regular assessment on the same day as he sought to pass an order under Section 154 rectifying his initial intimation under Secti...

Khejuri Guruprasad Balika Vidyaniketan and anr. Vs. State of West Beng ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)1CALLT391(HC)

S.K. Mukherjee, J. 1. The school authorities of Khejuri Guruprosad Balika Vidyaniketan have come up with this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short) challenging an order dated March 14, 202 passed by the Additional District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Contal Sub-Division, District: Purba Midnapore whereby the said District Inspector of schools refused to accord approval of the panel submitted by the school authorities for appointment of a Group D staff (Matron) in the school concerned on the finding that there was no margin of at least 20 (twenty) days between the date of posting of the call letters and the date of interview in terms of the guidelines for recruitment of Group D staff in the high schools.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be summarised as under;(a) Due to up-gradation of the said school as Class X high school, a vacancy arose in the post of Group D staff, consequently, the school appli...