Court : Kolkata
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This was a winding up petition presented by a creditor on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. The claim of the petitioning creditor is for balance price of the goods sold and delivered. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows :--2. During the period between 23-9-1998 and 7-6-1999 the petitioning creditor sold and delivered goods worth Rs. 24,09,697 out of which the company paid a sum of Rs. 20,09,108.70 leaving thereby a balance of Rs. 4,00,598.30. The company by its letter dated 9-6-2000 wrote to the petitioning creditor as follows :--'It has always been our sincere effort to pay your bills on time but due to certain unavoidable circumstances beyond our control we are unable topay your dues on time. We regret to say that due to the untimely receipt of payments from the various State Electricity Boards, huge sums are blocked. However, we shall take every care to release your dues with the least possible delay. We regret the inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Cal)428,[2002]258ITR591(Cal)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The application is moved upon notice.2. After having heard the oral submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties this court is of the view that instead of keeping the writ application pending on the file of this court it can be disposed of at this stage with certain appropriate directions.3. The petitioner has questioned the order dated July 26, 2002, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Asansol, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thereby transferred the petitioner's case from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Asansol, to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Ranchi. The petitioner has questioned the said order of transfer of the case on several grounds.4. The petitioner's name appears at serial No. 3 of the impugned order and the PAN/GIR number has been specified opposite his name showing the case to be transferred from Asansol to Central Circle, Ranchi. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)2CALLT287(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J. 1. This is to consider an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (the writ petition in short) challenging the order dated February 27, 2002 passed by District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia, inter alia, refusing to accord approval to the panel for filling up a post of Group 'D' employee (Laboratory Attendant) in Rishi Nibaran Chandra Vidyapith, Bandwan.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petitioner may be summarised as under:(a) The Director of School Education, West Bengal by order dated September 5, 1999 sanctioned two posts of Laboratory Attendants in the said school.(b) The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purulia granted prior permission to school authorities to fill up the posts of Laboratory Attendants. While granting the prior permission, the District Inspector of Schools concerned indicated the qualification for appointment in the said posts. It was indicated that the incumbents should complete Class VIII stand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2002(4)CHN704,[2003(97)FLR981],(2003)IILLJ1024Cal
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. These three writ petitions are taken up together inasmuch as identical questions are involved. In these three writ applications the orders passed by the learned Judge, Second Labour Court, West Bengal, refusing to permit the company to represent through its learned advocate, are under challenge.2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ applications are summarised as under:(a) The workmen concerned made applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of their alleged mandatory benefits before the Second Labour Court. (b) The company appeared in the said proceedings and submitted letters of authority authorising Shri G.S. Sengupta, Learned advocate, to represent the company before the, said Court. (c) In spite of service of notice, none appeared before the Labour Court to object to such representation by learned advocate and as such the said learned advocate was representing the company before the said Court. (d)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1201,II(2003)DMC313
ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 18th December, 2001 in Misc. Case No. 182/2001 under which he allowed the prayer of the petitioner wife and awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- as interim maintenance every month till the disposal of the petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. payable by the husband to the wife with effect from December, 2001.2. Being aggrieved by that order the O. P. husband has preferred the present revisional application challenging the same as erroneous, improper and unsustainable.3. Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner husband has submitted that the Court below passed the order without considering the value of the documents which were filed by the husband in support of his plea that the petitioner was not his married wife and he had married another female person named Rekha Naskar. According to Mr. Pal the learned Magistrate having passed the order in consideration of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(Cal)240,[2002]258ITR393(Cal)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The single question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 32AB(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the investment deposit allowance of Rs. 6,54,637 ?'2. The issue which fell for decision by the Tribunal was this, that, if the asses-see utilises a certain amount of money out of the assessee's business profits, in a certain assessment year, for purchase of new machinery, but actually does not get the said machinery installed and used in the very same assessment year, is the assessee still entitled to deduction ?3. On an interpretation of the wording of Section 32AB, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion, that sub-section (1)(b) of the said section merely requires that the assessee has, out of the assessee's business income, utilised any amount during the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2003Cal263,(2003)2CALLT322(HC)
D.K. Seth, J.1. Preliminary These appeals are directed against the Judgment and decree dated 31st August 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 8th Court, Alipore in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale being in Title Suit No. 33 of 1995. Against the said decree, defendant No. 1, vendor, has filed F.A. No. 14 of 2000, while the defendant No. 2, subsequent purchaser, has preferred F.A. No. 13 of 2000. Both these appeals, by consent of the parties, have been heard together. We propose to dispose of both the appeals involving common question of fact and law, by a common judgment.1.2. The plaintiff had succeeded in obtaining the decree of specific performance of the contract for sale of 1/7th share of the defendant No. 1 in the suit property. The said 1/7th share, however, was purchased by M/s. Ceean International Private Limited, appellant, in F.A. No. 13 of 2000 during the pendency of the suit.Submission on behalf of the appellant in F.A. 13 of 2000:2. M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2003Cal124
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. All the aforesaid batchof writ petitions were heard analogously asthe question of fact and law in all the casesare almost identical and similar. All the writpetitioners being the unsuccessful candidates in the matter of obtaining Stage-Carriage Permit for operating passenger vehicles on the route from Calcutta to Siligurihave challenged the decision of the StateTransport Authority (STA). A number of persons who have been added or allowed to Intervene in these writ applications weregranted stage-carriage permits by and under a resolution dated 26th November 2001by the State Transport Authority (hereinafter in short STA). The decisions taken bythe STA purported to be in compliance witha judgment and order of Justice RonojitKumar Mitra (as His Lordship then was)passed on 14th September 2001, in anumber of writ petitions, wherein the previous decision of the STA was also challenged.Previously as it has been observed by Justice Mitra, principle of natural justic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)1CALLT59(HC)
S. Barman Roy, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.4.1999 and sentence dated 9.4.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Calcutta in NDPS Case No. 40/95 convicting the appellant under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further one year.2. The prosecution story, as alleged, in brief is that in the complaint filed against the appellant by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit, Calucutta, it was, inter alia, alleged that acting upon an intelligence, a batch of Officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit, Calcutta intercepted the appellant at a place on Raja Ram Mohon Roy Sarani in front of City College, Calcutta at 8 p.m. on 4.9.1995. On being challenged the appellant voluntarily brought out from his right pocket of the trouser a polythene packet containing some bro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2003Cal148,(2002)3CALLT503(HC)
A.K. Mitra, J. 1. This revisional application has been preferred challenging Order No. 38 dated 6.3.02 passed by the learned Chief Judge in the City Civil Court at Calcutta in O.C. No. 5/1999. The basis of or the background on which this revisional application has been preferred is inter alia as follows; 2. The opposite party herein filed an application under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate of the last will and testamen to the deceased Sudhir Chandra Saha, son of Late Nandalal Sana of 16A, Mondal Street, P.S. Jorabagan, Calcutta-700 006. The said application for probate has been registered as Probate Case No. 73/1998 before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta. 3. Coming to know about the said probate proceeding, the petitioner herein raised an objection in the said proceeding for which the said case No. 73/1998 was dropped and was transferred as O.C. No. 5/1999 that is the instant case. 4. The petitioner filed written objection on 21st ...
Tag this Judgment!