Kolkata Court April 2003 Judgments
Humboldt Wedag India (P) Ltd. Vs. the Eighth Industrial Tribunal and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT172(HC),(2004)ILLJ315Cal
A. Lala, J.1. This writ petition arising out of order No. 39 dated 28th January 2003 passed by the learned Judge, Eighth Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta.2. The issue is whether the single workman can represent his case individually even after initiation of the proceeding by employees' registered union.3. Dr. Tapas Banerjee, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the employer company (hereinafter called as the 'management') contended that whenever a dispute raised by a union on behalf of a workman such dispute is to be construed as 'collective dispute'. Therefore, the individual workman loses his locus standi as soon as he represents his case before the Tribunal through the union. He cited a judgment reported in : (1961)ILLJ504SC (Ram Prasad Vishwakarma v. Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and Ors.) to establish his case wherefrom I find a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that when a dispute concerning an individual workman is taken up by the Union, of which the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Sudeshna Bhattacharjee Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2003
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN334
1. Feeling distraught with the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah of 27.08.2002 whereby the opposite party No. 2 was granted bail upon his production on the very first day the petitioner who is the de facto complainant of G. R. Case No. 1725 of 2002 and on the basis on her complaint section ******* police station Case No, 164 dated 19.8.02 under Sections 498A, 467, 468, 471, 406, 419, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation seeks to cancel the same by filing this application before this Court on 25.9.02. Pursuant to an order of a Division Bench of this Court notice was sent upon the opposite party by registered post with Acknowledgement Due Card.2. When the matter appeared before us on 07.4.03 from1'the affidavit-ofservice filed by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner we found that there was intimation was sent. Inscription on the reverse of the envelope 'intimation' under the dtated signatu...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Smt. Vinita Baid
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)79TTJ(Kol.)986
1.The Revenue has filed these appeals for the asst, yrs. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 against the consolidated order passed by the learned CIT(A).2. The common ground raised by the Revenue in all the appeals is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in quashing the reassessment proceeding in view of the amended provision of Section 147 of the Act.3. While framing assessment for the asst. yr. 1994-95, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had invested towards construction of the house of Rs. 2,96,405 in the asst. yr. 1991-92, Therefore, the case was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for estimating the cost of construction. The DVO estimated the cost of construction. Since there was difference in the cost of construction as per the report of the DVO in comparison with the cost shown by the assessee, the assessments were reopened for the asst. yrs. 1991-92 to 1993-94. The AO made additions as unexplained expenditure towards cost of construction under Section 69...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhi India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: 2003(89)ECC847,2003(156)ELT35(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. W.P. No. 2404 of 2002 1. These two applications were heard together as similar points are involved. I, however, propose to deal with W.P. No. 2404 of 2002 first.2. By this writ application, the writ petitioners have prayed for declaration that no countervailing duty is payable by the petitioner No. 1 on the sale of articles made of plastic granules/agglomerates manufactured at their Export Processing Zone unit at Falta in the Domestic Tariff Area on the basis of Notification No. 48/2001-Central Excise, dated 10th October, 2001 and for direction upon the respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 155.64 lacs which has been collected from the petitioners by way of countervailing duty on the clearance and sale of plastic granules/agglomerates manufactured by the petitioners at their Export Processing Zone at Falta in Domestic Tariff Area.3. The petitioner No. 1 carries on business of manufacturing reprocessed plastic agglomerates/granules falling under Chapter 39 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Netai Chandra Rarhi and Co. and ors., Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commis ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Cal)706,[2003]263ITR186(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. In all these applications the same question of law being involved, those were heard analogously.2. By these writ applications the petitioners have prayed for cancellation of orders dated March 20, 2002, passed by respondent No. 1 thereby allowing an application under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), thereby withdrawing the waiver of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which was earlier allowed by the original order under Section 245D(4) of the Act. By the orders impugned, direction for charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act has been given.3. The facts giving rise to filing all these applications may be summarised thus :(a) Notices under Section 148 of the Act for reassessment of the petitioners for several assessment years having been given, the petitioners filed applications before respondent No. 1 for settlement of their tax liabilities. The final hearing of those settlement applications before...
Tag this Judgment!Pranab Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Smt. Kumkum Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT207(HC),I(2005)DMC457
J. Banerjee, J. 1. The appellant, petitioner filed a suit for divorce which was dismissed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Howrah by a judgment and decree dated 21.8.2000. Being aggrieved by such decision, the appellant has come before this Court.2. His case in short is that he married the respondent Smt. Kumkum Chakraborty and the same was solemnised on 17.6.1982 according to Hindu rites and customs. Two children, one daughter and one son were born in such marriage. Father of the respondent. Shri Dilip Kumar Banerjee was a resident of Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh having no permanent house. The respondent went to visit Varanasi in August, .1990 accompanied by her brother. She refused to return from there without any reason inspite of several letters/requests by the petitioner and members of his family and in this way she left the matrimonial home leaving the child daughter who was a student of class-Ill. In October, 1991 she however returned to matrimonial home. Further ...
Tag this Judgment!Statesman Limited and anr. Vs. First Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ307Cal
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the validity and/or legality of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in respect of the workman who was considered by the learned Tribunal as 'protected workman'. By the said impugned order, learned Judge of the Tribunal also held that the employer is guilty of doing unfair labour practice within the meaning of the 5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act for which the employer can be penalised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The brief facts material for this petition are mentioned hereinafter: The Government of West Bengal (Labour Department) referred one industrial dispute for adjudication by the First Industrial Tribunal vide Order No. 1648-IR dated December 15, 1998 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act concerning the workmen including the respondent No. 2 herein. The said reference is still pending for adjudication. During pendency of the said refer...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas631(Cal),[2004]50SCL283(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee , J. 1. Chandmani Tea Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'said company') is having its principal undertaking being Chandmani Tea Estate situated in the district of Jalpaiguri. The registered office of the said company is also situated within the tea estate. The said company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Government of West Bengal by which a portion of the tea estate was transferred to a new company namely Lakshmi Township Limited which was incorporated for the purpose of building a satellite township in joint venture with the Government of West Bengal. By virtue of such memorandum of understanding a portion of the tea estate was converted in a vacant land for the purpose of building such township. Such decision of the company as well as the Government of West Bengal gave rise to an industrial dispute and labour unrest. There had been intensive agitations by the workers of the said estate causing casualty to one of the workmen in a ...
Tag this Judgment!Golam Momen Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Cal)78,[2003]263ITR69(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the writ petitioner has prayed for setting aside notice dated January 16, 2003, under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), issued by respondent No. 1 for realisation of the demanded amount from the different persons who are holding money for or on account of the petitioner.2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Act. The petitioner received a notice dated February 15, 2000, under Section 158BC of the Act from the office of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-8, directing the petitioner to submit a return for the block period, viz., 1989--December 2, 1999. Pursuant to such notice, the petitioner submitted a return on March 30, 2000, under protest.3. Ultimately, the petitioner was assessed and on December 31, 2000, a demand of Rs. 2,29,50,263 was raised. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know from his bankers that respondent No. 1 had issued purported notices under Section 226(3) of the Act aski...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd. Vs. Hindusthan Paper Corporation Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT576(HC)
A.K. Banerjee, J.Principles of law relating to an award under the new Arbitration Law1.Although under the new Arbitration Law, arbitrator is bound to disclose reasons, the scope of judicial scrutiny of an award has come in a very narrow campus under the present law. Under the present law, on merits an award can be impugned only if it is found that the arbitrator has travelled beyond the scope of reference of if the same is illegal being contrary to the laws of the land. The award can also be impugned if it is in conflict with the public policy of the country being affected by fraud or corruption or in violation of Section 75 or 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Since fraud, corruption or violation of Section 75 or 81 are absent here the only question calls for my determination is to whether the subject award is devoid of reason or whether the award or any part thereof is contrary to settled principles of law.2.1. 'Reason' in an award has been defined by Supreme Court ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »