Kolkata Court September 2002 Judgments
Thai Airways International Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2003(160)ELT75(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. The Court : The writ petitioners are a foreign Airways Company and its General Manager. They are affected by an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, dated 19th April, 1993. They invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court as far back as on 22nd July, 1993 challenging such order.2. It appears to this Court, that on numerous occasions this matter was heard by the Court from such time and ultimately the matter was placed under the heading old matters. Subsequently it was placed under the heading 'old adjourned matters' and ultimately it was heard by this Bench in respect of the merit of the matter.3. Factual background of the case is that on 3rd April, 1991 at Calcutta Airport the Thai Airways Flight TG-311 landed as an non-scheduled flight due to some mechanical fault. The flight was on its route from Bangkok to Kathmandu. After necessary repairing the flight took off for Kathmandu. But after half an hour the flight came back again t...
Tag this Judgment!Badal Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2005CriLJ433
ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 22nd July, 1988 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kalna rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to transfer G. R. Case No. 134 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379 and 323 of the I.P.C. pending before that Court to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Burdwan for trial along with G. R. Case No. 133 of 1985 under Section 304 of the I.P.C. which was exclusively sessions triable and was pending before the latter Court for trial.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that both the cases having arisen out of the same incident, must be tried together otherwise their separate trial may lead not only to multiplicity of proceedings but also to conflict of decisions. In support of this contention, Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relies upon two decisions of the Apex Court. One reported in : 1980CriLJ1271 and another reported in 2001 Cri. L.R. (SC) 241...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Flakt India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Cal)322,[2002]258ITR622(Cal)
1. This is an appeal intended to be preferred by the Revenue from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated March 30, 2001.2. After the first presentation of the appeal petition, we directed notice to be given to the assessee, and today the assessee has appeared and contested the admission of appeal.3. The assessment year involved is 1985-86, the previous year of the assessee having ended with the expiry of December 31, 1984.4. The only point involved is in regard to a sum of Rs. 22,83,890 and the sole question sought to be canvassed before us is whether this expenditure by the assessee was of a capital or a revenue nature. The Assessing Officer had held the expenditure to be of a capital nature and allowed depreciation but disallowed total deduction. The assessee won both before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal.5. The concurrent finding of facts before both the said departmental authorities is that the sum was paid by the assessee to its Japanese su...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(152)ELT60(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. It appears to this Court that this contempt application has been placed under the heading 'Old Matters' before this Court and thereafter it was placed under the heading 'Old Adjourned Matters' and ultimately under the heading 'Specially Fixed Matters'.2. It further appears to this Court that there was an order dated 12-3-1982 in a writ petition being C.R. No. 1856(W)/82 whereunder the goods were directed to be cleared off from the custody of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta upon deposit of certain sum by furnishing Bank guarantee in favour of such authority. The petitioners were entitled to take clearance of the goods in future without payment of differential duty only if the amount of such differential duty is covered by the amount deposited with the Receiver, i.e. the Advocate-on-record of the petitioners appointed under such order. On 12-3-1987, this matter came before a Bench of this Court whereunder Court ordered that if the respondents authorities do n...
Tag this Judgment!Kal Electronic and Consultancy (P.) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Development Cor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: [2004]119CompCas337(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. Defendant No. 1 is a company having financial stringency. Defendant No. 3 company is a going concern. This is a joint application of both the companies. The plaintiff-company is the debenture holder of defendant No. 1 company. The convertible part of such debentures has already been converted into equity shares and the non-convertible part has been redeemed. Defendant No. 2 is the trustee bank of the debenture holders.2. Upon observing recent recession in the steel industry defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 wanted to make arrangement amongst themselves. As a result whereof an application for consideration and confirmation of the scheme of arrangement was jointly made before this High Court having company jurisdiction. Shareholders of both the companies were directed to hold separate meetings. The shareholders of both the companies by an overwhelming majority accorded approval of the scheme of arrangement. Subsequently, a joint application was made under Section 391...
Tag this Judgment!Gour Chandra Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR454(Cal),2004(1)CHN660
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the State Respondents. Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging order dated 27.6.02 passed by the ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Cooch Behar in Title Execution No. 2 of 02.3. The fact of the case is that the petitioner herein got an arbitration award relating to a work within the jurisdiction of Cooch Behar Sadar and to enforce with arbitration award in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner filed an appropriate application before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Cooch Behar.4. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Cooch Behar by his order dated 27th June, 2002 after considering Section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act read with Section 42 and also after considering Section 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code was of the view that he not being the Principal Civil Judge as mentioned in...
Tag this Judgment!Peter James Gifran Von KalkesteIn Bleach Vs. State of West Bengal and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ332
ORDERAsok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Peter James Gifran Von Kalkestein Bleach, a British national, appearing in person, petitioned before this High Court with the grievance that he is a victim of discrimination as the President of India, while acting in exercise of power, under Article 72, refused to remit the sentence imposed on him while granting the said prayer of five other Russians who were similarly convicted and sentenced with him. His specific case is that he, along with five other Russian Nationals, were convicted in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1997, under Sections 121A/121/122, IPC read with Sec. 25(1-A) and 25(1-B) of the Arms Act 1959 and 9B(2) of Explosives Act 1884 and Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act 1908 read with Section 5(2)(1)/10/11/11 of the Aircraft Act 1934.2. The brief facts of that criminal case are that the accused persons were jointly charged for dropping huge quantities of arms and ammunitions from an Aircraft in the villages Khatugon. Belomu, Moramu, Varadhi, Bara...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Sitanath Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC751,2003ACJ765,(2003)1CALLT248(HC)
A. Chakrabarti, J.1. This appeal arises out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assessing the compensation at Rs. 1,30,000/-.2. The claim application was filed by the parents of victim Sandip Chowdhury who died by reason of a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal found that the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle caused the accident and the death of the victim. Considering the age of the victim multiplier has been applied by the tribunal at 16 taking into consideration his earning as Rs. 1850/- per month as salary. Age of the victim at the time of death was found as 27 years.3. The appeal was filed by the Insurance Company contending that in such facts the age of the parents being the applicants is required to be considered for the purpose of applying the multiplier. This only contention of the appellant insurer has been contested by the learned advo...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dwijesh Kumar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: II(2003)ACC478,2003ACJ778
A. Chakrabarti and R.N. Sinha, JJ.1. This appeal was filed against a judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowing an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.2. The claim application was filed for compensation as the victim being the son of the petitioner while driving a Maruti car was hit by a private taxi coming at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and as a consequence of such accident the victim sustained severe injury and, therefore, removed to the hospital where he expired soon after his admission.3. The Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and death occurred due to the said accident. Further finding of the Tribunal is that the victim was a businessman and used to earn from his own business and the yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,39,176 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Surinder Kaur Rai Vs. Jyoti Ranjan Banerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)CHN685
1. In this matter when this Court, after hearing Mr. Sudhis Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, was about to formulate the substantial questions of law for admission of this appeal, Mr. Bimal Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the Caveator intervened and urged that the court should hear him on behalf of the respondent-Caveator at the initial stage of formulation of the questions of law and he is entitled to point out that no such questions actually arise in this case.2. The issue which crops up in view of the submission of Mr. Chatterjee is whether the respondent is entitled to be heard at the initial stage when the court formulates the question. The learned Counsel for the Caveator submits that once the court formulates the question and admits the appeal for hearing, the hearing normally takes place after a considerable period of time and his client will be denied the benefit of his right which has been crystallized in the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »