Kolkata Court February 2003 Judgments
Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(87)ECC317,2003(156)ELT4(Cal)
Bhattacharya, J. 1. The Court : Since nobody appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice, this Court requested Mr. Sibdas Banerjee and Mr. A.K. Deb, who generally appear on behalf of the Respondent-Authorities, to appear in this matter. Mr. Banerjee and Mr. Deb agreed to appear in this matter on behalf of the Respondent-Authorities. A copy of this application has been served upon Mr. Deb in Court. The Respondent-Department is directed to regularise the appointments of Mr. Banerjee and Mr. Deb in this matter.2. By this application the petitioner has challenged an ex parte order dated December 18, 2002, passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lakh as a condition for the purpose of hearing of the Appeal before the Tribunal 3. After hearing Mr. Bajoria appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the respondents, I find that in view of...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Afroz Begum and ors. Vs. Abdul Quddus and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT384(HC)
A.N. Ray, J.1. In this appeal a point of first Impression arises, amongst others, whether thika tenancy is partible amongst joint tenants who have inherited the original thika tenant's rights.2. The point arises in the appeal before us which was preferred from a decree passed in 1992 in a suit instituted in 19,78 allowing partition, and passing a decree in preliminary form, declaring 12 annas share as owned by the plaintiff No. 1 and the balance 4 annas by the defendants.3. There have been substitutions in this matter. The plaintiff No. 1 was substituted by her three successors after she died after passing the preliminary decree.4. It appears that, one Abdul Ghani was the original owner of the thika tenancy and he died in 1945. Since he died without leaving any issue, according to Mahamedan Law his widow, Abeda, got 4 annas share and balance 12 annas share went to the daughter of his pre-deceased brother, Sk. Kallu, namely, Rabea. Rabea was the first plaintiff. The plaintiff No. 2 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Kumar Singhania Vs. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2003
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN601
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Since the matter has been argued before us at length by both the parties, we, with consent of the parties, treat the appeal on the day's list and dispose of the same by the following judgment.2. There shall be an order in terms of prayer(a) of the petition.3. This appeal arises out of an order dated 20.09.2002 by which the learned Judge of the first Court directed the defendant/appellant to furnish security within three weeks from the date and, in default, directed that the decree should be drawn up for a sum of Rs. 5,82,61,191.15p. along with interim interest @ 6% per annum and interest on judgment @ 12% per annum. It was made clear in the said order that in the event of failure on the part of the defendant to furnish security, decree and consequential order will follow and the suit will stand disposed of.4. Prior to the aforesaid order, another order dated 11.09.2002 was passed by the learned Judge recording therein that the suit was filed by the plaintiff fo...
Tag this Judgment!C.E.S.C. Ltd. Vs. Rup Kumar Barik and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Cal195,(2003)3CALLT188(HC)
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. We dispose of by this common judgment and order three appeals from a common judgment and order of the learned Land Acquisition Judge, by which he disposed of three references from the awards of the Collector.2. The acquisition in these cases did not take place under Act I of 1894 but under the West Bengal Act II of 1948 which is called the West Bengal (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948.3. Hereafter we shall refer to these Acts simply as Act I and Act II.4. The number of referring claims is quite large and is above 20. They are in three sets. The land was acquired under Act II in May, 1995. The area is upwards of three bighas. One bigha is 20 cottahs and 1 cottah is 720 sq. ft. The land was a part of a 10 bigha tract situated at 156 A, Manicktala Main Road, owned previously by a single common ancestor, namely. Kali Pada Barik, since deceased.5. The Collector made this award sometime in the year 1997 and thereafter the Land Acquisition Judge was approached on ref...
Tag this Judgment!Prabir Kumar Nath Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1582,AIR2003Cal318
ORDERIndira Banerjee, J.1. This writ petition, is directed against the action of the Respondent No. 1, which is hereinafter referred to as Respondent LIC in disowning its liability to the petitioner on account of disability benefit under Policy No. 420717908, taken out by the petitioner, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'said policy'. The decision of Respondent LIC was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 20th August, 1997 which is under challenge in this writ petition.2. This is a most unfortunate case where the petitioner who had been a bus driver became permanently disabled by reason of amputation of one of his legs, consequent to an accident.3. The petitioner claims to have lost his job on account of the amputation of his leg as aforesaid.4. The petitioner was/is the holder of the said Policy No. 420717908 issued by respondent LIC which provides for an accident benefit.5. The relevant clause is set out hereinbelow for convenience :--'10. Accident Benefit : If at ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhagwati Developers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Cal)619,[2003]261ITR658(Cal)
D. K. seth J.1. There was a search and seizure in the premises of the assessee. From the documents scrutinised, some expenditure was noticed to have been incurred by the assessee. But this expenditure does not find recorded in the books of account produced. Neither this amount was shown in the category of receipts. The Assessing Officer and the appellate authority had added the amount under Section 69C on account of failure of the assessee to satisfactorily explain the said expenditure. The learned Tribunal concurred with the finding of the appellate authority to the extent that no addition can be made if the same is negated by payment. But it is to be examined, since the amount has not been shown in the regular books of account, in the context of the construction work as to whether this amount was reasonably spent or not. Therefore, the matter was remanded for reassessment to the Assessing Officer. An application for review or rectification under Section 254(2) was filed on behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Calcutta Telephones Vs. Presiding Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ1060Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. This petition originally was made in he year 1997 challenging the order of the Tribunal passed on February 14, 1996, that the order of termination against the casual employees under the management of the petitioners having worked for more than 240 days within 12 months prior to the date of retrenchment is void and illegal. The termination was caused by an order dated January 1, 1989, by the petitioners. The reference was made by the Governmental authority on October, 1991. The order of reference is as follows:'Whether the action of the management of Calcutta Telephones, Department of Telecommunication, Teher Mansion, 8, Bentick Street, Calcutta-1, in terminating the service of Shri Bijay Kumar Mondal, casual workman, with effect from May 17, 1988, is legal, proper and justified If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?'2. It appears to this Court that the petitioners have neither challenged the reference by way of a writ petition before this Court nor have ...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhat Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Smt. Papiya Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT100(HC)
D.P. Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2000 in Matrimonial Suit No. 256 of 1995 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage in favour of the wife.2. Title suit No. 114/92 was filed by the present respondent/wife praying for dissolution of her marriage with the present Appellant Probhat Kumar Chakraborty on the ground of cruelty and desertion.3. The suit No. 194/92 was filed by the present appellant/husband against the respondent/wife praying for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. Both the suits were tried analogously. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband was decreed and the suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the wife was dismissed. Both the suits were thus disposed of by delivering one judgment on 28.1.94.5. After expiry of more than one year from the date of the decree for restitution of conjugal ...
Tag this Judgment!Phuleswar Prasad Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ19CAT
1. This case has a chequered history of litigation. In order to understand the' grievance of the applicant it is necessary to state very briefly the background facts.2. The applicant joined service under the Eastern Railway as Clerk, Gr.II on 8.9.1956. After passing departmental examination, he was promoted to the post of Clerk, Gr. 1 and posted in the office of the Chief Accounts Officer at Fairle Place with effect from 11.5.1959 and was confirmed w.e.f. 10.10.63. The applicant went on leave from 7.10.1970 and left for his home town in Bihar during the Puja holidays. It is alleged that the applicant had been suffering from piles and hence he could not join his duties after the Puja holidays, and reported sick.It is his case that from his native place he had been sending leave applications with medical certificate and in the absentee statement issued by the office, against his name a remark "Reported sick" was shown. It is stated that in October, 1972 the applicant was declared fit by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Capital Electronics (Gariahat)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Cal)402,[2003]261ITR4(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The question referred to this court for answer is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Act on the ground that there was no absolute default on the part of the assessee to get the accounts audited ?'2. Mr. Mihir Lal Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the assessee, had pointed out that though the learned Tribunal had rejected the assessee'sexplanation with regard to the reasonable cause for default contemplated under Section 271B in respect of furnishing the audited accounts required under Section 44AB, it is a quasi-criminal matter as was held in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali : [1970]76ITR696(SC) , therefore, according to him, the default does not automatically attract the mischief of penalty in view of the changed proposition of law now prevailing and accepted by the Supreme Court and various other High Courts. He relied on the decisi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »