Kolkata Court September 2002 Judgments
V. Mala Viswanathan Vs. P.B. Viswanathan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT216(HC),II(2003)DMC809
D.K. Seth, J.The Scope:1. The wife-appellant has preferred this appeal against order No. 19 dated 22nd of December, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Alipore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 22 of 1999 granting an injunction restraining the wife-appellant from making any attempt of forceful entry in her matrimonial house till the disposal of the matrimonial suit.Submission on behalf of the Appellant:2. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there cannot be an injunction restraining one of the spouse from entering into the matrimonial house of which she becomes a part, relying on paragraph 31 of the decision in Volsomma Paul (Mrs.) v. Cochin University and Ors., reported in : [1996]1SCR128 . He had also relied on Pinckney v. Pinckney, reported in (1966) 1 All ER 121 in order to contend that one of the spouse cannot be ousted from the house. Therefore, the impugned order appealed against cannot be sustained.2.1 Relying on the decision in Chitra...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sudera Services (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Cal)310,[2004]268ITR505(Cal)
ORDER1. In this reference made by the Tribunal under Section 256(1), two questions were referred to us for decision. Those are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow deduction in respect of delayed payment of provident fund dues even accepting that the amounts could be disallowed on strict interpretation of Section 43B ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing relief of Rs. 64,267 being delayed payment of provident fund dues, accepting an interpretation of the provision of Section 43B, other than the strict interpretation, for the sake of equity though it is a settled principle that equity has no place in interpretation of taxing statute ?' 2. There had been delay in payment of provident fund contributions for the month of September, 1987 and the month of July, 1988, the payments being respectively made on the 23rd Oct., 1987 and 22nd ...
Tag this Judgment!Halmira Estate Tea (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Cal)312,[2004]268ITR498(Cal)
ORDER1. The only question formulated by the assessee for the purpose of agitating it in an appeal under Section 260A is as follows :'Whether on a true and proper construction of the provisions of Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that provident fund payments actually made during the previous year but beyond the due date would have to be disallowed under the said provisions ?'2. In the impugned order of the Tribunal passed on 31st Jan., 2002, it directed the assessee to place all its arguments in regard to provident fund contribution deductions before the AO so far as the question of what constitutes 'due date' was concerned. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that as per the current law, contained in Section 43B(b) and the further proviso appearing under that section, no discretion is left in regard to provident fund contributions to the AO or the other Departmental authorities of the IT Department.3. In case the due date for payment of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Binod Kumar Gupta and ors. Vs. Rajendra Prosad Shukla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Cal68
ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 14th August, 1996 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 1992. By that order that Court affirmed the order dated 3rd February, 1992 passed by the Ld. Munsif, 4th Court, Howrah in T. S. No. 26/1992 granting an ad interim injunction ex parte directing both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo of the suit property till the disposal of the injunction-petition under Order 39, C.P.C. The relevant facts were as follows. The suit No. T. Section 26/1992 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent praying for a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing plaintiffs' peaceful possession in the suit property and the plaintiffs also prayed for temporary injunction to the above effect till the final disposal of the suit. While passing the order for issuing notice upon the defendants to show cause why...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Saren Vs. Padmabati Saren
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-2002
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN313,2003CriLJ2844
Malay Kumar Basu, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia under which he allowed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance in favour of the wife to the tune of Rs. 500/: for the wife herself and Rs. 300/- for the child payable by the husband-O.P. within the 15th day of every month and the learned Magistrate further directed that the order was to take effect from the date on which it was passed. Being aggrieved by that order the husband has preferred the present revision-petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order is erroneous, illegal, unjustified and liable to be set aside.2. The case of the applicant-wife was that she had been married by the O.P. Sunil Soren according to the Hindu rites. Because they were members of santal community they were Hinduised and used to follow the traditions and customs that are followed by the Hindu wives p...
Tag this Judgment!ibp Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)78TTJ(Kol.)158
1. This appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against CIT(A)'s order for the asst. yr. 1989-90. The assessee is a public sector undertaking, and, accordingly, it has duly obtained requisite clearance from the Committee on Disputes (Cabinet Secretariat) for the ground of appeal it seeks to pursue in this appeal.2. As for the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, learned counsel fairly stated that since the assessee has not been able to obtain CoD clearance for the same and since the assessee is, therefore, not pressing the same, these two grounds may be treated as withdrawn.Accordingly, we dismiss the ground Nos. 1 and 2 as withdrawn.3. Solitary grievance of the assessee, for which CoD clearance is obtained and which the assessee has pressed before us, is against CIT(A)'s confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,03,07,000 made by the AO on account of provision to give effect of revision of pay scale of officers based on Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) guidelines. This grievance is covere...
Tag this Judgment!Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Haldia Investment Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)85ITD212Cal
1. This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 1997-98 is directed against the order dated 28-12-2000 of CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata and the only dispute is relating to application of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and, accordingly, entitlement of set-off of carry forward loss of Rs. 69,20,855 claimed by the assessee. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused.2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that the assessee-company had filed the return of income for assessment year 1997-98 on 25-11-1997 declaring a loss of Rs. 65,79,600. This case was selected for scrutiny and, accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) vide order dated 28-2-2000. The Assessing Officer computed the speculation loss at Rs. 69,20,855. The assessee had suffered loss mainly on account of purchase and sale of shares.Dividend income of Rs. 3,41,257 was also received by the assessee in the preceding year. The Assessing Officer considering the f...
Tag this Judgment!Mayurakshi Cotton Mills (1990) Ltd. and anr. and Panchra Mayurakshi Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT190(HC),[2003(97)FLR856],[2002]256ITR471(Cal)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. Since the subject-matter of challenge in both the writ petitions is same, the award dated 14th November 2000 passed by the Ninth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal at Durgapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), they have been heard together ; and we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.2. A company known by the name of 'Mayurakshi Cotton Mills Ltd.' having its factory at Panchra, Birbhum, in West Bengal was wound up in terms of the BIFR's order dated 20th September 1989. Its assets were purchased by the Government of West Bengal for Rs. 108,80,092.00. To reopen and run the said factory, on 4th January 1990 the Government constituted a 'committee-of-management' (hereinafter referred to as 'the committee'). On 18th February 1990 the factory was re-opened. Most of the employees/workmen of the erstwhile company were engaged afresh by the committee on temporary basis.3. Three unions, namely, (1) Mayurakshi Cotton Mills Mazdoor Union, (2) Mayurakshi Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›