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.
Kohinoor Tailoring Works and Anr. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corpo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ84Cal
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioners herein filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal, for condoning the delay in filing the case before the said Court. The learned Judge of the said Employees' Insurance Court rejected the said application filed on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to any proceeding before the Employees' Insurance Court. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid decision of the learned Judge of the Employees' Insurance Court in the present writ petition.2. The facts of this case are briefly mentioned hereinafter:The petitioner No. 1 is engaged in tailoring business. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 is not engaged in any business invoking any manufacturing process with or without the aid of power. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the total...
Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and ors. Vs. JaIn Udyog and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal153
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1.This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment and order dated 26th April, 1996 pronounced in Writ Petition No. 2081 of 1995, which was filed by the respondents herein.2. By the impugned judgment and order the writ petition was allowed, and the bills (Annexure 'D' to the writ petition), demanding payment of balance of berth hire charges, by the Calcutta Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.T.'), from the respondents who had specifically agreed to pay the berth hire charges for the purposes mentioned in the said bills, were set aside. The learned Judge held that the C.P.T. was entitled to mooring hire charges and not berth hire charges, because the two berths used by the respondents, considering the locations, names, descriptions, features, and facilities, could not be said to be full-fledged berths, or berths for that matter.3. The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was made applicable to the Port of Calcutta with...
Appropriate Authority Vs. Lytton Hotel (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN524(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.A notice for pre-emptive purchase under section 269UD of Chapter XX-C, Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood then, was initiated against the assessee-respondent. The said proceeding was challenged in writ petition No. 1833 of 1993 by the assessee. By a judgment and order dated 15-11-2000, the learned Single Judge of this court was pleased to quash the said notice and the proceeding. It is against this order, the revenue has preferred this appeal.2. The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue Mr. Agarwal has pointed out that while exercising writ jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings under section 269UD, against which no appeal is provided for, this court does not sit on appeal, as was decided by the Apex Court in various decisions, a few of which have since been cited by him. He has then contended that the court cannot sit on appeal with regard to the valuation given in the valuation report while deciding such a question. The learned Single Judge had, however, virt...
Jai Mica Supply Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)86ITD96(Kol.)
1.This appeal is directed against the order dt. 31st Jan., 1995, passed by the CIT, West Bengal-II, Calcutta, under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. Although the assessee has raised as many as seven grounds of appeal, the assessee's only substantive grievance is that the assessment order sought to be revised by the CIT was not erroneous at all and, as such, the CIT's interference was uncalled for.2. The issue in appeal lies within narrow compass of facts. The assessee is engaged in the business of processing raw mica and converting the same into 'fine mica' and 'fabricated mica products'. It is on export sales of these mica products that deduction under Section 80HHC was claimed by the assessee and the same was allowed in the assessment under Section 143(3) for the assessment year in question, which was completed on 4th Feb., 1993. The assessee was allowed this deduction under Section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 10,16,493 which, consequent to appellate order being given appeal effect, was ...
Shaw Wallace and Company Limited Vs. Ghoom Investment Company Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal126
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. As the matter was heard at length before this Court, with the consent of parties, we treated the appeal on the day's list and we dispose of this appeal by this Judgment.2. In this case, the appeal arises out of the order dated 8-8-2002 passed by a learned Judge of the First Court taking interlocutory business and, by the order under appeal, the learned Judge passed a decree for the principal sum of Rs. 20 lacs and further passed a decree for interim interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the principal sum to be calculated from 1-8-1995 till the date of the filing of the suit. The learned Judge also granted interim interest and interest on Judgment at the aforesaid rate of 20%. The learned Judge further held that the rest of the claim shall be tried after the filing of the Written Statement and trial shall be held unconditionally. Certain directions for expeditious hearing of the suit were also given.3. The facts of the case are that the respondent granted int...
Shamim Ahmed and ors., Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT11(HC),2003(2)CHN431,2003CriLJ2815
G.C. De, J. 1. This Special Bench has been constituted to answer the following common questions raised in all these pending applications: 'Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at all maintainable at post cognizance stage of a case instituted on police report or complaint after the Court issued process like warrant of arrest for production of a person of having committed a non-bailable offence?'-- this Special Bench was constituted.'2. In all the present applications, a prayer was made for anticipatory bail either after filing of the charge-sheet or after issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court in a particular proceeding or after process was issued by the Court after taking cognizance in complaint cases. 3. Such a question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Sk. Alim and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal reported in 1993 C Cr. LR (Cal) 137 in which Their Lordships, referring to a decision of ...
Smt. Kabita Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Smt. Santi Devi Bajaj and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT485(HC)
A.K. Mitra, J. 1. These two second appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment dated 30.6.1994 and decreed dated 7.7.1994 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court Allpore, Dist. 24 Parganas (South) in Title Appeal No. 87 of 1992 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1992 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 221 of 1981 and also the judgment and decree dated 13th June and 7th July, 1994 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 88/92 and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 31st January, 1992 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 252 of 1984.2. Title Suit No. 221 of 1981 and Title Suit No. 252 of 1984 were taken up together for analogous hearing and the learned Munsif by a Single Judgment disposed of the two Title Suits. Accordingly, two appeals being 87/92 and 88/92 were preferred. The Appellate ...
Rahee Industries Ltd. Vs. the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporati ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT280(HC)
A.K. Bisi, J.1. In the instant suit against defendant No. 1 the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. and defendant No. 2 the Export Credit & Guarantee Corporation Ltd. the plaintiff Rahee Industries Ltd. has sought declaration, if necessary, that the plaintiff alone is entitled to the balance sum of Rs. 97,02,153.90p calculated by defendant No. 1 on account of the original plaintiff out of the proceeds of the transaction between the original plaintiff and the Egyptian National Railways and is entitled to the credit of the said amount less the sum of Rs. 16,11.099/- already credited to the account of the original plaintiff with defendant No. 1, decree for permanent mandatory injunction against defendant No. 1 to credit the said sum to the account of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 2 not to make any claim on the said sum or any portion thereof, decree for Rs. 80,91,054/- against defendant No. 2, interest @ 18% per annum on the said sum of Rs. 80,91,054/- from 18.4.92 t...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kartick Chandra Mandal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC306,2004ACJ304
S. Banerjea and I. Banerjee, JJ.1.This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 40 days in preferring the appeal.2. After hearing the learned advocates for both the parties and considering the application, it appears that the inability of the appellant to prefer the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation was not because of any laches or negligence on his part but because of the circumstances beyond his control. It appears to this court that the learned advocate appearing for the appellant who was dealing with the matter became sick as a result whereof he was unable to prefer the appeal within time. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.3. This application is, therefore, allowed. The delay in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. Let the appeal now be registered.4. Since the learned advocates for both the parties subm...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamala Hazra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ95
Samaresh Banerjea and Indira Banerjee, JJ.1. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 55 days in preferring the appeal.2. After hearing the learned advocates for both the parties and considering the application, it appears that the inability of the appellant to prefer the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation was not because of any laches or negligence on his part but because of the circumstances beyond his control. It appears to this court that the learned advocate appearing for the appellant who was dealing with the matter became sick as a result whereof he was unable to prefer the appeal within time. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.3. This application is, therefore, allowed. The delay in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. Let the appeal now be registered.4. Since the learned advocates for both the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »