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.
L.P. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manor Floatel Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT242(HC)
ORDERAsit Kumar Bisi, J.1. By the application being G.A. No. 2965 of 2001 the petitioner Manor Floatel Ltd. being defendant in C.S. No. 178 of 1995 has prayed for condonation of delay in making the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 22nd November, 1998 passed in C.S. No. 178 of 1995 and setting aside the order dated 17th February, 2001 passed in execution proceeding arising out of the ex parte decree dated 22nd December 1998.The case of the petitioner is brief is that on 19th May 1995 the plaintiff L.P. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. filed the said suit, inter alia, praying for the following relief:(a) A decree for complete possession of the licensed premises fully described in annexure 'A' to the plaint together with all equipments and fixtures mentioned therein; (b) A decree for Rs. 11,97,000/-; (c) (i) Alternatively a decree for Rs. 10,17,000/-; (ii) An enquiry into mesne profits/damages and a decree for such sum as may there upon be found due to the plaintiff; (d) Inter...
Sabari Ventures Limited Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT155(HC)
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. After hearing the parties it appears to me that moot question which falls for adjudication is whether a non-party to a suit can apply for vacating of an interim order and whether, in any event, such interim order can bind him when he is not a party to this suit.2. The facts are briefly narrated hereinafter.The plaintiff through its banker being defendant No. 1 opened a letter of credit. The dispute arose when according to the applicant being the negotiating banker, made a claim on the basis of the said letter of credit to the defendant No. 1 on the ground that it had already made payment to the corresponding party being the defendant No. 3 under the said letter of credit. The defendant No. 1 refused payment on the ground that the papers were not in order. Plaintiff, in the meantime, approached this Court by filing the above suit and obtained an order of injunction in terms of prayer (a) and (c) of the interim application which are quoted below:(a) An injunction do i...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Cal)596,[2003]263ITR300(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. In this case, the AO has disbelieved the genuineness of the subscription received by the assessee from its directors and promoters as well as from the public. On appeal, the CIT(A) had found that proper investigation was not made in respect thereof. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for enquiring the matter afresh on the ground that the earlier enquiry was made in hot haste. On remand, in course of the enquiry, opportunity was given to the assessee. It was found that the income-tax file numbers of the promoters and directors were disclosed and all those payments were made by cheques except a sum of Rs. 20,000 subscribed in cash by one Amarnath Gupta, who is not an income-tax assessee. The rest Rs. 19,88,750 was subscribed by general public. Despite successive opportunity being given, nothing was disclosed about the identity of the subscribers except furnishing a list of subscribers. Therefore, on appeal, the CIT(A) had again remanded the case in respect ...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sri Tapan Kumar Giri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT325(HC),[2004(102)FLR1207],(2004)IILLJ763Cal
J.K. Biswas, J.1. In this appeal the judgment and order dated 22nd July 1994 passed by Prabir Kumar Majumder, J (as he then was) in Matter No. 2024 of 1993 (a writ petition) has been impugned. The writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 challenging (a) the disciplinary proceeding initiated by charge-sheet dated 2nd November 1992, and (b) the punishment order of dismissal from service dated 3rd May, 1993. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Judge was pleased (a) to set aside the punishment order on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, and (b) to grant liberty to appellants to impose any punishment other than the punishment of dismissal or removal from service. By an order dated 16th September 1994, passed in this appeal the operation of the impugned judgment and order was stayed.2. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., the appellant No. 1, initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent No. 1 by issuing the charge-...
Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN601(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.The reference under section 256(1) has since been made to this court on the question, viz.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the appellate order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the addition of Rs. 8,70,387 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act by holding that the creditworthiness of the individual shareholders and consequently the genuineness of the investment recorded in the books of the Company in their names remained unestablished and the assessing officer was therefore justified in coming to the conclusion that the alleged subscriptions represented the appellant Companys income of the year from some concealed sources' ?2. In this case, it is alleged by the assessee that these shares were floated and subscriptions were invited from the public through advertisement in the newspapers and the whole paraphernalia of subscription for shares was undergone in acco...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Cal)290,[2003]262ITR528(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. A notice under Section 226(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (Act), issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, Delhi (TRO), has since been challenged by the petitioners/appellants herein. Initially this Court remitted the matter to the TRO, which had issued the said notice. The matter was adjudicated upon and the claim of the petitioners was rejected. Against this order the petitioners had moved the present writ petition since dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Out of the said order, the present appeal arises. 2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the IT authority in a proceeding against the petitioners had held that the transaction between the petitioners and one Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (hereinafter termed as 'VCVL') was an ingenuine transaction and, therefore, disallowed the deduction of interest on borrowed capital and then directed addition of the amount under Section 68A (68) of the IT Act. The CIT(A) had affirmed the order of the AO and had held that the explana...
Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Cal)585,[2003]263ITR289(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The reference under Section 256(1) has since been made to this Court on the question, viz.,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the appellate order of the CIT(A) by which the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of Rs. 8,70,387 under Section 68 of the IT Act by holding that the creditworthiness of the individual shareholders and consequently the genuineness of the investment recorded in the books of the company in their names remained unestablished and the AO was, therefore, justified in coming to the conclusion that the alleged subscriptions represented the appellant-company's income of the year from some concealed sources' ?2. In this case, it is alleged by the assessee that these shares were floated and subscriptions were invited from the public through advertisement in the newspapers and the whole paraphernalia of subscription for shares was undergone in accordance with law. These subscriptions were dealt ...
Ambika Enterprises Vs. Trishna Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR9(Cal),2003(2)CHN334
D.K. Seth, J.1. The deficit Court fee has since been filed on 7th March, 2003 under filing No.-A-3017 of 2003 the defect is removed. The appeal is in order.2. An application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) was filed by the appellant. In the said proceedings, an appointment of Receiver was obtained. The respondent filed an application for vacating the order. Ultimately, however, the proceeding under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was dismissed for non-prosecution resulting into the discharge of the Receiver. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking modification of the order of dismissal of the proceedings for non-prosecution discharging of the Receiver. It was sought to be contended that the nature of the application was that of an application for review. But this contention was negatived. The application was found to be one under Section 152 CPC. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge had ...
Anup Kumar Biswas and ors. Vs. Babul Kumar Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR183(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. In this application for interim order a preliminary objection is taken viz. ; that this application for interim order cannot be entertained unless the appeal is admitted under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Admittedly, this has not been set down for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11, CPC.2. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners, however, pointed out that the appeal is an appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act). This provision confers statutory right of appeal. When the statute provides for an appeal, there is a right of appeal. Such right cannot be denied through a procedure for admission. According to him, the provision of Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (1940 Act) which provided for application of CPC has since been repealed by implication on the incorporation of Section 19 of the 1996 Act. This provision specifically excludes application of CPC.3. Learned counsel for the respon...
Babusona Sharma Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CHN425
Sujit Barman Roy, J.1. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 15.2.2003 passed by the ld. SDJM. Krishnanagar, Nadia in connection with G. R. No. 1316 of 2002.3. The case in brief is that on 25.1.2003 without producing the petitioner before the said Magistrate, a prayer was made by the I.O. to show the petitioner arrested in connection with this case also though he was already in custody in connection with some other case.Said prayer of the I.O. of this case was allowed by the ld. Magistrate and issued necessary production warrant for production of the accused petitioner before him on 20.1.2003 and apparently till then petitioner was not taken into custody by the said Magistrate though he was shown arrested in this case. But on 20.1.2003 on behalf of the petitioner a prayer for bail was made before the said Magistrate. On behalf of the I.O. also a prayer was made before the said Court for allowing police custody of the petitioner for te...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »