Kolkata Court November 2003 Judgments
Uttam Numala Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN233
P.M. Sinha, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) is for setting aside the judgment and order dated 23.6.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bankura in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2002 setting aside the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter called S.D.J.M.), Khatra in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2001 under Section 125 of the Code rejecting O.P. No. 2-wife's application for maintenance.2. Learned advocate for the husband petitioner contended that in the instant matter marriage between petitioner and O.P. No. 2 is denied and the petitioner never married O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 is not the legally married wife of petitioner. The learned S.D.J.M. rightly discussed the evidence of the witnesses adduced by both the parties and came to the finding that the wife has failed to prove that she was married with this petitioner. The husband-petitioner who was op...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Joarda and Partha Sarathi Roychoudhury Vs. State of Wes ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN692
Rajendra Nath Sinha, J.1. These two applications are under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the petitioners respectively seeking to quash the proceeding including the FIR being Siliguri P. S. Case Nos. 24(4)85 dated 10,04.85 under Section 161/165A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (G. R. Nos. 292/85 and 294/85 respectively).2. Petitioner in this petition was at the appointed time a Junior Accountant of the W. B. Essential Commodities Corporation at Siliguri. The petitioner in the other application (CRR 2333/99) had been working as Branch Manager, West Bengal Essential Supplies Commodities Corporation Ltd., Siliguri Branch since 26.11.1979. On 10.4.1985 one Sri G. Ghosh, Personal Manager, West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as WBECSC Ltd), a Government of West Bengal undertaking, lodged a written complaint registered as Siliguri P. S. case as stated above.3. The alle...
Tag this Judgment!Prabir Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC514,AIR2004Cal111
ORDERBhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. All these three writ applications were heard together as common questions of law are involved herein.2. By these writ applications the writ petitioners, the existing holders of Stage Carriage Permit in the concerned route, have challenged notification issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pursuant to the direction of the Central Government thereby enhancing the number of Stage Carriage Permits in those routes.3. The grievance of the writ petitioners in these writ applications is that while increasing the number of permits in the concerned routes the respondent/authorities did not take into consideration the existing road condition, pollution factors, scope of parking the vehicles etc. According to them, there should be no further increase in number of permits.4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I am of the opinion that in view of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Himungsu Kumar Basu Vs. Sudhangsu Kumar Basu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal217,2004(1)CHN626
Amitava Lala, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal arises out of a judgment and order of remand passed by the 14th Additional District Judge, Alipore, South-24 Paraganas, Calcutta. A very interesting and important question of law is germane for the purpose of due consideration by this Court.2. A suit has been instituted by the respondent/plaintiff in the Court of first instance for the purpose of administration, accounts and various other consequential relief in connection thereto. The reliefs as prayed in the suit are as follows :a) For due administration of the estate of the deceased fully described in the Schedules 'A' and 'B' to the plaint;b) For allotment of the 'A' Schedule property in the share of the plaintiff as a legatee under the 1st Will and Testament of the deceased, Smt. Bijali Prova Basu and in respect of which probate has been obtained by the defendant, granted by the learned 3rd Court of the Additional District Judge, at Alipore in O.S. No. 2 of 1977;c) For according i...
Tag this Judgment!Gyanendra Nath and anr. Vs. Profession Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN8
D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 25th February, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 4406(W) of 2002 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of absence of jurisdiction of the High Court in view of Section 14 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 (1987 Act).2. Mr. Hirak Mitter, learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, raised two questions. First, that the writ petition could not be dismissed as not maintainable in view of Section 14 of the 1987 Act barring jurisdiction of the High Court. The second is that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners, though posted at Calcutta, are not persons employed in West Bengal and thus are not subject to the West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1979 (WB Act). He had raised several limbs of this point, namely, that the salary of the appellants-petitioners posted at Calcutta are being paid by their employer at Chhattisgarh as su...
Tag this Judgment!Albert Davit Limited Vs. Anuradha Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN125,(2004)IIILLJ608Cal
Asit Kumar Bisi, J. 1. The instant appeal preferred by the appellant is directed against Order No. 16 dated 9.9.2003 passed by Shri P.L. Dutta the learned Judge 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 225 of 2003. By the order impugned the learned Judge allowed the application for temporary injunction under Order No. 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff/respondent Mrs. Anuradha Choudhury and restrained the defendants from proceeding with the departmental proceeding initiated by the defendants against the plaintiff by a letter dated 9.11.2002 issued by defendant No. 2 till disposal of the suit.2. The factual matrix leading to the instant appeal may briefly be stated thus. As per case of the plaintiff she has been working for gain in Albert Davit Ltd. at 15, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta since September, 1990 and is holding the post of Junior Executive, Sales Promotion Department of the said company. Defendant No. 3 has been engaged as E...
Tag this Judgment!ici India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Sr-15
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)90ITD258(Kol.)
1. While the first appeal, ITA No. 502 (Kol.) of 2002, relating to the assessment year 1989-90 is directed against the order dated 11.1.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) X, Kolkata ('CIT(A)' in short), the second appeal, ITA No. 500 (Kol.) of 2002, relating to the assessment year 1992-93 is directed against the order dated 25.2.2002 passed by the CIT(A). Since the main issue involved in both the appeals is common, both the appeals are disposed off by a common order.2. In ITA No. 502 (Kol.) of 2002 (A Y 1989-90), the appellant-assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: "(1) That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has wrongly concluded that the transfer of Fertilizer and Fibres Undertakings as a going concern falls within the purview of Section 32A(5) of the IT Act for withdrawal of Investment Allowance granted for plant and machinery purchased during A Y 1989-90." "(2) That the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in ignorin...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Kejriwal (Executor Vs. Acit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)89ITD172(Kol.)
1. The appellant-assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 21/23.5.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) XXII, Kolkata (CIT(A) in short) on the following grounds: (a) THAT the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,89,560/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain in sale of 1200 shares of ITC. He failed to appreciate that the bonus shares having been received on 17.11.94 merged with the value of original shares and therefore the average cost had to be taken while calculating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of such shares." "(b) THAT the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the amended law regarding valuation of bonus shares which came into effect from asstt Yr. 1996-97 was applicable to the Bonus shares received on 17.11.94 also." "2. (a) THAT the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the addl. Ground of appeal with regard to the sale price of 1400 shares of ITC Classic Finance which was wrongly taken at page-2 of the assessment order at ...
Tag this Judgment!Glaxo India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN215
G.C. De, J.1. Let the affidavit of service filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner be kept with the record.2. Heard both sides.3. By this application a prayer has been made for quashing of the proceeding against the present petitioner M/s. Glaxo India Limited [formerly known as Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd.] in connection with G. R. Case No. 1620 of 1996 arising out of Jorasanko P. S. Case No. 350 dated 30.9.96 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.4. The learned Counsel for the present petitioner has based his argument on the following two grounds ;(1) A criminal case, in which punishment is imprisonment as well as fine, cannot proceed against an artificial person like a company.(2) The complaint itself does not prima facie make out a case against the present petitioner.5. For the purpose of substantiaing the first point, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court in Assistant Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!NizamuddIn Mullick and anr. and Ram Kumar Marjit and Three ors. Vs. St ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN165
D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th September, 1979 passed by the learned Single Judge in C. R. No. 19111 (W) of 1975. In the said case, the petitioner's land was sought to be sold in auction in a proceedings under Section 4 Sub-section (4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act as it stood prior to the 1981 amendment on the ground that one Chinmoy Marjit has used the land in plot No. 1864 for purposes other than for which the land was held, namely, for agriculture by operating the cattle market on the said land under a licence issued by the Anchalik Parishad of the Panchayat. The petitioners have alleged that no notice was served upon the three co-sharers of the said Chinmoy Marjit against whom the proceedings were initiated and who had participated in the proceedings. In the opposition, it was never alleged that notices were served on each of the raiyats though admittedly there was four raiyats in respect of the holding who had inherited the property aft...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »