Kolkata Court March 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bangur Foundation Limited Vs. Esjey Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN621
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th January, 2003, passed by the learned Company Judge on an application filed by the appellant for recalling of an order of winding up passed by the learned Company Judge on 27th June, 2002. As will appear from the order impugned in the appeal, the application for recalling the order of winding up was made mainly on the grounds that (1) no notice of the winding up petition had been served upon the company which, as a result, could not represent itself when the order of winding up was passed and (2) the filing of the winding up petition was barred by limitation.2. On the first ground the learned Company Judge observed that the order of winding up had been passed after giving public notice in two newspapers. The learned Judge further observed that even if it was assumed that the copy of the winding up petition had not been received by the appellant at the preadmission stage, the company could have appeared at the time o...
Rajasthan Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer Assessment Wing a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC383(Cal)
ORDERGirish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The writ petitioner has challenged an assessment order dated March 30, 1992 by which the Commercial Tax Officer refused to give benefit of the C forms to the assessee on the following grounds :(a) Date of registration is not mentioned in the form.(b) Levelling charges of bottom plate have been included in theform.(c) Form amount and statement amount differ.(d) Purchase order was dated September 1, 1987 whereas invoices are dated April 29, 1987.2. The learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that except for the objection (d) noted above all other objections raised by the Commercial Tax Officer for the purpose of refusing relief to the assessee are illegal.3. In respect of omission to state the date of registration in the C form he has relied on a division bench judgment of this Court. In the case of Anil Kumar Dutta v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal reported in [1967] 20 STC 528 at page 540, a Division Bench opined as...
Antonie Bentz Private Limited and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Com ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT552(HC),2004CriLJ346
A. Lala, J.1.In the instant case, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court basically for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceeding pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) being Ballygunge P.S. Case No. 5 dated 11.1.02 (State v. Pradeep Mehta and Ors.) under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Out of the four petitioners, first petitioner is the company which has been shown as defaulter and the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the Directors of such company. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 are already obtained a bail, but, as and when actions are going to be taken as against the petitioner No. 3, the writ petition was moved by taking a plea that a sum of Rs. 160/-was only due and payable and as against the same a criminal proceeding was initiated against the elderly lady who is also having terminal disease.3. The Court prima facie accepted the view and passed interim order which was extended from time to time and...
Arun Das and ors. Vs. Paresh Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT288(HC)
A.K. Mitra, J.1. These two appeal have been preferred by the defendant-appellant being dissatisfied with judgment and decree dated 22.7.94 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South) in title appeal No. 22/92 affirming the judgment and decree dated October 5, 1991 passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, at Alipore in title suit No. 316 of 1986. Both the title suits being title suit Nos. 316 and 325 of 1986 have been filed by the plaintiff Sri Paresh Ch. Das. Both the title suits were heard analogously by the learned Munsif.2. The title Suit No. 316 of 1986 was filed by the plaintiff Sri Paresh Ch. Das which was a suit for eviction of licensee on revocation of licence. The case made out by the plaintiff in this title suit as would appear from the plaint itself in brief is inter alia, as follows:3. The plaintiff P.C. Das purchased a residential plot of land measuring about 2 kottahs and 1 sq. foot and made a construction in and ov...
Kolkata Hotels Private Ltd. Vs. United Builders and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT549(HC)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) was made before the learned District Judge, Barasat. This application was dismissed on the ground that the Arbitrator was nominated by the learned Chief Justice under Section 11 Sub-section (6) of the Act, and as such; it is this Court alone has jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of all other Courts including Barasat Court are excluded by reason of Section 42 of the Act. This order has since been challenged in this appeal. Notices were issued to the respondents who had appeared in this matter. The question involves a question of law on admitted facts. Therefore, the Court proposed to hear out the appeal itself.2. By consent of the parties, this matter is treated as on day's list for hearing. The parties had addressed the Court on merits of the case.3. Dr. Tapas Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, had contended that while discharging function under Section 11 Sub-s...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamdhenu Vyapar Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Cal)600,[2003]263ITR692(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. This matter was disposed of by an order dt. 13th March, 2003. After the order was dictated, Mr. Bagchi appeared and mentioned. He submitted that because of some unforeseen circumstances, he was unable to come to the Court within time and, therefore, he could not present himself at the time of hearing. We therefore, did not sign the order dictated and kept the matter for hearing. The order dt. 13th March, 2003, is hereby recalled. By consent of parties, the matter is treated as on day's list for hearing. The matter is taken up for hearing today. 2. Mr. Bagchi points out that he is only concerned with one question that there was a request for issuing summons under Section 131 of the IT Act, 1961, by the assessee which finds mention at p. 13 of the paper book being the order of the Assessing Officer (ITO) and at p. 29 of the paper book being the order of CIT(A). According to him, in the proceeding under Section 68 of the Act, the onus or burden is on the assessee to e...
Sadhan Ghosh and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT414(HC)
S.K. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalna within the District of Burdwan in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2000 whereby he convicted the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer further imprisonment for six months.2. It appears from the lower Court Record that prosecution case is that on 10.03.1998 one Prabir Kumar Dey of village Pukushpur within P.S. Purbasthali submitted a written complaint to the O.C. concerned stating therein that on 09.03.1998 at about 8.30/9 p.m. his neighbours Sadhan Ghosh, Madan Ghosh and Ashok Ghosh chased his brother Ganesh Dey with sharp weapons in their hands from the western side of their house. Sadhan and Madan had two sharp weapons in their hands and Ashok had a Bhojali and a bamboo stick in his right and left hand respectively. They chase...
Food Corporation of India and ors. Vs. Gopal Chandra Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT10(HC)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The award made by the Arbitrator in the dispute between the parties, was made rule of the Court after rejecting the appellants' application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (1940 Act), by a judgment dated 10th of May, 2000 passed in T.S. No. 74 of 1987 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah. Against this decision the present appeal has been filed by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). In the award, the claim of the respondent/claimant was allowed and the counter-claim of FCI was denied altogether.2. One of the grounds taken before this Court is the point of limitation. It appears from Clause 41 at page 84 of the Paper Book (PB) that the scope of arbitration was related to 'all disputes and differences arising out of or any way touching or concerning this Agreement whatsoever (except as to any matter the decision of which is otherwise expressly provided for in the agreement) shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person ap...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Burma Construction and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal174
1. The prayer for stay of operation of the judgment and decree appealed against made by Mr. Sadhan Roychowdhury in this application for stay was opposed by Mr. Suchit Kumar Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. According to him, the Court cannot grant any stay unless the condition contained in Sub-rule (3) Clause (c) of Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is complied with. He contended that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of the Order 41, CPC makes it mandatory for the appellant to secure or deposit the money while preferring an appeal against a money decree. He relies on a decision in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla v. Sushila Devi, . According to him, Order 27, Rule 8A, CPC refers to Rules 5 and 6 of Order 41, CPC but omits to mention or refer to Order 41, Rule 1(3) CPC. Therefore, Order 41, Rule 1(3), CPC is not subject to Order 27, Rule 8A, CPC even if the appellant is Government, as in the present case. He had also relied on the decis...
Cit Vs. Kamdhenu Vyapar Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN147(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.This matter was disposed of by an order dated 13-3-2003. After the order was dictated, Mr. Bagchi appeared and mentioned. He submitted that because of some unforeseen circumstances, he was unable to come to the court within time and, therefore, he could not present himself at the time of hearing. We, therefore, did not sign the order dictated and kept the matter for hearing. The order dated 13-3-2003 is hereby recalled. By consent of parties, the matter is treated as on days list for hearing. The matter is taken up for hearing today.2. Mr. Bagchi points out that he is only concerned with one question that there was a request for issuing summons under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee which finds mention at page 13 of the paper book being the order of the assessing officer (Income Tax Officer) and at page 29 of the paper book being the order of Commissioner (Appeals). According to him, in the proceeding under section 68 of the Act, the onus or bur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »