Kolkata Court December 2003 Judgments
Pressman Advertising and Marketing Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-31-2003
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Kol.)483
Both the appeals relating to assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 are against the order passed by the assessing officer under section 147.The appellant- company, in its grounds of appeal, has basically challenged the reopening of assessment which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 20-8-2002.The facts of the case are that the assessee purchased 30 number of light commercial vehicles in the assessment year 1993-94. These vehicles were given on lease to DCM Financial Services and such vehicles were sub-leased to individual truck owners and were used for commercial hiring. Clause 3(h) of the agreement of lease furnished with the paper book at p. 17 stipulated that the vehicles shall be registered as public transport vehicles and shall be maintained as per the relevant rules of the Motor Vehicle department of the relevant States.In its returns for assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95, the assessee claimed higher rate of depreciation on the ground that the vehicles ...
Tag this Judgment!Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Cal)150,[2004]266ITR462(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. On December 2, 2003, I heard the matter in the absence of the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. S.K. Kapoor, and passed an order directing to file affidavits and to continue interim order for a period of eight weeks after X-mas vacation or until further order whichever is earlier. On the same day at the request of Mr. Kapoor, I agreed to hear the matter on the subsequent days without recalling the above order. I made clear to learned counsel that in the event the submission and argument of learned Additional Solicitor General warranted vacating and modification or recalling of my order dated December 1, 2003, I might do so.2. As such the matter was heard on December 5, 2003, and December 9, 2003, respectively.3. The learned Additional Solicitor General contends that this application should be dismissed in limine, if not possible at this stage then the interim order granted by this court should be vacated. He says the notice issued by the officer is n...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraj Enterprises and ors. Vs. Illora Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN552
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of confirmation dated November 31, 2000 passed by the ld. Additional District Judge, 13th Court, South 24-Parganas, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 207 of 2000. By his judgment and decree the ld. Judge was pleased to affirm the judgment and decree dated June, 13, 2000 passed by the ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 9th Court in Title Suit No. 39 of 1991.2. The plaintiff/respondent of this suit came up with this suit with the prayer for ejectment on evicting the defendant and for mesne profits etc.3. The case of the plaintiff/respondent in short is as follows.4. Plaintiff became the owner of flat No. 1D in question by virtue of purchase by a registered deed of purchase dated 22.7.1990. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff since 2nd August, 1982 in respect of the suit flat described in schedule 'A' to the plaint with fittings and fixtures described in schedule '...
Tag this Judgment!Srikanta Das Adhikari Vs. Jareswar Chanda and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT317(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged an order passed by the learned Civil Judge [Junior Division) at Dantan, Midnapore (now West). The order passed by the learned Court below dated 14th July, 2003 in J. Misc. Case No. 32 of 2003 is under challenge. The order was passed considering an application (herein petition) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. Originally a petition under Section 204 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act was filed by the petitioner being plaintiff therein challenging the result of the election on 21st June, 2003. The petitioner was ill from 12th May, 2003 to 20th June, 2003. The petitioner prayed for condonation of delay since the cause of delay was not intentional but was physical problem. According to the Court below, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that one can apply for condonation of delay having sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal or making application within the peri...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Kr. Nandi and 42 ors. Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT335(HC)
A.K. Mitra, J.1. This writ petition has been moved by 43 petitioners claiming to be working as Telecom Technical Assistant hereinafter termed as T.T.A.) under Calcutta Telecom Circle. Since Department of Telecommunication has been taken over by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter termed as BSNL). The petitioners can be said to be working under BSNL.2. The prayers-of the petitioners in this writ petition are as follows:(a) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding their men, agents, or subordinates to take necessary steps for sending the petitioners for JTO training for promotion to the said Cadre (Junior Telecom Officer) by following list published on 24.4.1998 on the basis of screening test held on 29.1.1995 under the then Recruitment Rules Policy on priority basis before sending any other persons from departmental quota declared to be found qualified subsequently.(b) A writ of/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to refrain from sending the candidates ag...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjit Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC740,(2004)1CALLT627(HC)
B. Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the writ petitioner, an existing permit holder, has prayed for direction upon the Secretary, Transport Department and the Secretary, State Transport Authority to dispose of the objection raised by the petitioner against issue of Stage Carriage Permits in the routes covering the area within the regions of Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling by the State Transport Authority.2. Mr. De, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/ respondent, has raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the instant writ application on the ground of absence of locus standi of the petitioner, an existing permit holder, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India and Anr., reported in : AIR1992SC443 . According to Mr, De, the petitioner, an existing permit holder, cannot dispute the grant of permit to other permit holder in the route even if the same is in contravention of the provisions contain...
Tag this Judgment!Barik Seikh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN110,2004CriLJ2152
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of Barik Seikh seeking to set aside and/or quashing the impugned order dated 29.6.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Jangipur in Case No. 113/1995 (T. R. No. 59/2000) in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this revisional application are as follows.3. The present petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 2 were married on the 16th of Ashar of B.S. 1398 in accordance with Mohammedan rites and customs against an amount of Rs. 251/- agreed upon as dower payable by the petitioner to the Opposite Party No. 2.4. On 31.5.1995 the Opposite Party No. 2 herein filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. before the Court of the ld. SDJM., Jangipur Murshidabad, inter alia, praying for an order of maintenance amounting to Rs. 600/- per month for herself...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Rawala Vs. Manabendra Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal294,2006(2)CTLJ92(Cal)
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This application has been taken out in the aforesaid partition suit after the same being disposed of by passing a decree and order on the basis of the terms and settlement dated llth October. 1993. The reliefs claimed herein are for setting aside of order and decree passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Babulal Jain (as His Lordship then was) and for granting leave to the petitioner to file appropriate application for setting aside of the deed of conveyance dated 12th October, 1993 in respect of the premises No. 17, Loudon Street, Calcutta in appropriate form. The fact of the case in the petition runs as follows :-The said premises No. 17 Loudon Street, Calcutta - 700017 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) in which the defendant/petitioner was a monthly tenant in respect of the ground floor, as well as the first floor thereof, was owned absolutely by one Smt. Pritlata Kanjilal since deceased. Before her death she made and published her last Will ...
Tag this Judgment!Bikash Chandra Das Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT17(HC),2004(2)CHN97
Rajendra Nath Sinha, J.1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is all about being aggrieved by an order dated 17.2.1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barrackpore in G. R. Case No. 3217 of 1992 arising out of Bidhannagar Police Station Case No. 103 of 1992 dated 15.8.1992 under Sections 420/406/465/467/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner who happened to be a doctor responded to an advertisement appeared in Ananda Bazar Patrika dated 8.11.1990 inviting offers for sale of a co-operative flat at Purba Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Salt Lake City, where one Nisith Das represented himself to be an authorised agent of Sri Satyanshu Chakraborty, the recorded owner of the flat negotiated the sale process. The then Hemen Moitra of the aforesaid Housing Society also testified that the said Nisith Das is an authorised agent of the owner and duly advised him to apply for membership of the S...
Tag this Judgment!Kartick Roy Vs. Prabitra Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-23-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN435
Alok Kumar Basu, J. 1. Both sides are present. Heard both sides. This is an application at the instance of the husband/opposite party of Misc. Case No. 61 of 1998 with a prayer for setting aside the order of maintenance passed against him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, in connection with said maintenance case.2. From the revision application as well as from the nature of submissions made on behalf of the present husband-petitioner it is very much clear that the husband/petitioner has challenged the order of maintenance mainly on the ground that the very pre-condition for passing the order of maintenance, i.e. the husband-wife relation between the party was never existing and the wife-opposite party totally failed to discharge her onus in the matter of establishing that relation before the Court below.3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the husband/petitioner has taken me through the judgment impugned in this application along with the evidence of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »