Kolkata Court April 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.
Mstt. Sarwari Begum Vs. Nazir Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Cal230,(2003)2CALLT583(HC)
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. 1. This is to consider an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated September 3, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Third court, Howrah in Civil Revision Case No. 5 of 2001 affirming order dated December 18, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 26 of 1992. 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the decree holders/opposite parties, Md. Idris, instituted Title Suit No. 215 of 1976, inter alia, for declaration of his title in respect of suit property and for recovery of possession. Ultimately the said suit has been decreed. 3. The decree holders put the decree into execution giving rise to Title Execution Case No. 23 of 1991 and Mstt. Sarwari Begum, the defendant No. 2 in the said suit, filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the executability of the decree, which was registered as Misc. Case No...
Chandmani Tea Company Ltd. and Vs. the Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT93(HC)
A.K. 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 police ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Pawandas (Pawan Kumar) Pvt. Ltd. and Five ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT342(HC)
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. Since all the above matters relate to identical questions of fact and law I intend to dispose of all the above matters by a common judgment.2. In the foregoing judgment I would refer to various documents annexed to the pleadings including the rival contentions of the parties mentioned in the pleadings. Those documents and/or averments and their respective page numbers would relate to A.P. No. 212 of 2002.3. Parties before me entered into a contract for execution of the work specified in the contract. The tender pertaining to the contract stipulated that the general conditions of railway contracts would be applicable in the instant case. The general conditions of contract provided for arbitration in case of any disputes between the parties. The relevant clause as referred to in the petition at page 55 is quoted below:--'62. Matters finally determined by the Railway-- All disputes or differences of any kind whatever arising out of or in connection with the contracts, ...
i.M.C. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Cal)445,[2003]261ITR731(Cal)
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition comprises two several notices both dated February 12, 1999, issued under Section 10 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, seeking to reopen the assessment of income for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 on the ground that the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax has reasons to believe that income from interest chargeable to tax for the aforesaid years escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 10 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows :Income for the assessment year 1993-94 was assessed by Sri S. K. Biswas, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 19, 1996, holding, inter alia, as follows :'The assessee is an exporter of molasses and leather goods. Besides this the assessee has shown income from rent from storage tanks, handling charges, throughput, interest, etc. The return was processed under Section 143(1)...
C.E.S.C. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Cal)116,[2003]262ITR243(Cal)
Girish Chandra Gupta, J. 1. The notices issued under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to rectify summary assessments made under Section 143(1)(a) of the aforesaid Act for the assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93,1993-94 and 1994-95 are under challenge in this writ petition. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows : The petitioner, CESC Ltd., filed income-tax returns under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, claiming deduction on account of appropriation to contingency reserve. On this basis returns were filed for the assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. The Assessing Officer duly accepted the returns and issued intimation under Section 143(1)(a) up to' the assessment year 1994-95 issuing refund orders from time to time from out of the tax deducted at source because in each of the aforesaid years the assessee had suffered losses. Besides that there was carry forward loss. In respect of each of the aforesaid assessment years notic...
Analab (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: [2003]262ITR596(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. It appears to this court that the order under challenge was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal (II), Calcutta, under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by holding a view that review of the order passed by the authority is impermissible under the law.2. According to me there is a fallacy in passing such order by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The case of the petitioner is that waiver of interest and penalty could have been granted by such authority but it failed to grant so. Earlier no tax has been paid and for the same it was not granted but since subsequently tax has already been paid there cannot be any embargo in considering the matter on the merits as regards waiver of interest and penalty under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The definition of the section speaks about the power of the authority to reduce or waive penalty, etc., in certain cases. Therefore, there is no question of holding a view that such type of applications ...
Kalidas Mondal Vs. Abdul HosseIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT253(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is to consider a revisional application challenging the judgment and order dated December 6, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court at Barasat, District -North 24 Parganas in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 23 of 1993 reversing order No. 9 dated January 22, 1993 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court at Basirhat, District- North 24 Parganas in title suit No. 188 of 1992.2. The defendant/petitioner in this revisional application, Kalidas Mondal, instituted title suit No. 74 of 1979 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Third Court at Basirhat against Panchu Karmakar and others for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. The plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 in this revisional application was defendant in the said suit.3. By judgment and decree dated July 31, 1990 the learned Munsif decreed the suit on contest with costs against the contesting defendants and ex parte against the other defendants without costs...
Srabani Dey Vs. Howrah Motor Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN117,[2004]122CompCas597(Cal),[2004]50SCL422(Cal)
Ashok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The appellants are contributories and shareholders of the Howrah Motor Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said Company) and the appeal is from an order dated 15th March, 2002 passed by the Company Judge in a winding up proceeding being Company Petition No. 240/98, holding that the settlement between the said company and the petitioning creditor Luxmi Tea Company, has been arrived at in the best interest of the Company and no winding up order was made in view of that settlement.2. Material facts of the case are that by two separate cheques the petitioning creditor, the second respondent in this appeal, lent and advanced on diverse dates in January 1996, Rs. 16 lakhs and also Rs. 1 crore to the Company and the Company was to pay on this inter-corporate loan an interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum and the loan was for a period of 6 months.3. As the company failed to pay the loan, a winding up petition was presented by the 2nd respondent, the pe...
Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Cal)12
D.K. Seth, J.1.A very interesting but short question has been raised by Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Some goods were seized from the petitioner/appellant on 27th Feb., 2001. A notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, was issued to the petitioner/appellant herein on 21st of Aug., 2001, by speed post. This notice was returned with the postal remark that the petitioner was out of town and despite several attempts, the notice could not be served. Six months expired on 27th Aug., 2001. Subsequently, in the proceedings, the representative of the petitioner appeared and had accepted the said notice on 23rd Sept., 2002. All these facts are admitted.2. On this background, Mr. Dutta has contended that by reason of Sub-section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, the petitioner became entitled to return of the seized goods and the customs authorities became liable to return the seized goods to the person from whom it was seized. The notice h...
Rousseau Mitra Vs. Shrimati Chandana Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal61
ORDERSubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff husband against an order passed by the learned trial Judge allowing in part an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, inter alia, directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only per month to the wife-defendant towards maintenance pendente lite for the wife and the male child from the date of filing of the said application and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only towards expenses of the proceedings including a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, which has already been paid to the wife in terms of an order passed by the learned trial judge on November 23, 2000.2. The husband instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 721 of 1998 in the Court of the learned District Judge. District South 24 Parganas for divorce. The said suit was eventually transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »