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.
Sundar Gupta and ors. Vs. State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN384
1. Prem Chand Gupta, since deceased, his son Sundar Gupta and Ors. preferred F.M.A.T. No. 3031 of 1986 challenging judgment and order dated 11th July, 1986 passed in connection with C.R. No. 10869(W)of 1981. Sri Arvind Gupta, one of the sons of deceased Prem Chand Gupta filed A.P.O. No. 253 of 1988 and also A.P.O. No. 375 of 1996 challenging orders arising out of Matter No. 2375 of 1986 and Matter No. 4251 of 1988 respectively.2. All the three abovementioned appeals have been taken up together for disposal by a common judgement since the points of fact and law involved in all the three appeals appear to be almost identical as evident from the facts of the case disclosed by different affidavits filed by the appellants time to time in connection with those appeals.Relevent facts of the case:3. Prem Chand Gupta since deceased was owner of premises No. 1/1, Sterndale Road (presently known as National Library Avenue), Calcutta, measuring more than five bighas and that property was subsequen...
Agri Horticulture Society of India Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal73
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. It appears from the submissions as made by the petitioners that in effect they are challenging the letter of 9th June, 1993 and 21st June, 1993 by saying that so far the adjustment of credit amount is concerned the same will be considered by the headquarters and the headquarters said that in view of the circular dated 28th Sept. 1990 they are not in a position to process the claim. According to the petitioners, the circular has not been shown by the respondent as yet nor any discussion made in the affidavit of the respondents.2. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the claims are from Nov. 1987 to Sept. 1988. The adjustment was sought for on 6th Feb. 1992 and the matter was considered and the adjustment was refused.3. In reply the petitioner contended that there was a lock out in the company and as soon as the lock out was lifted the adjustment was sought for by the company. Therefore, there is no question of delay and in the writ jurisdiction there...
Board of Trustee of the Port of Calcutta Vs. Pearl Transport Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal122
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C. J.1. This appeal is directed against an interim order passed by a learned single Judge dated 7th April, 1986, whereby the learned single Judge while entertaining the writ petition passed the following order;'the pendency of this writ petition will not prevent the writ petitioner from obtaining possession of the disputed plot of land No. LM3536D measuring 11,564.285 sqm. At Transport Depot Road from the ex-workers of M/s. OFU LYNX CO. LTD. (Now in liquidation) on the usual terms and conditions of the Calcutta Port Trust to set up business by the petitioner and to absorb the ex-worker of the said company on the undertaking by the petitioner to deposit and pay Calcutta Port Trust Rs. 6369.74 (Rupees six thousand three hundred sixty nine and paise seventy four only) per month from the date of taking possession of the said premises. The pendency of the writ petition will not, however, prevent the Calcutta Port Trust to issue fresh allotment in favour of the petitioner...
Bellevue Clinic and anr. and East Diagnostics and Research Centre Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: [2005]139STC406(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two writ applications were heard together as common questions of law were involved in these applications. I, however, propose to deal with W.P. No. 1949 of 2002 first.W.P. No. 1949 of 2002 :By this writ application, the writ petitioners initially prayed for an order directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to withdraw, cancel and set aside the decision contained in the letter dated August 13, 2002 of respondent No. 4 and the purported notice to show cause dated August 22, 2002 issued by the respondent No. 2. Subsequently, during the pendency of this writ application, the respondent No. 2 by order dated October 22, 2002 having passed order holding that the petitioners are liable to pay tax after overruling the plea of the petitioners, such order has also been challenged in this writ application pursuant to the leave granted by the division Bench.2. The facts giving arise to the filing of the instant writ application may be summarised thus:The petitioner No. ...
Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. and Geo Miller and Co. Ltd. Vs. De ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Cal)47,[2003]262ITR605(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The appeals being A.P.O. No. 118 of 2002 and A.P.O. No. 361 of 2001 arise out of the judgments and orders both dated January 28, 2002, passed in W. P. No. 2492 of 1994 (Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT : [2002]255ITR49(Cal) ) and W. P. No. 2489 of 1994 (Geo Miller and Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT : [2002]254ITR620(Cal) ), respectively. The learned judge was pleased to dismiss both the writ petitions after considering the relevant position in facts and proposition of law, which have since been assailed in these appeals.2. The moot question we are required to consider is the validity and legality of the notices, all dated July 29, 1994, issued by the respondent-Income-tax Department under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reopening the respective assessment under Section 147 for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1989-90 and 1985-86 to 1989-90, respectively, in the two cases.3. Dr. Pal has contended that there was an embargo of a period of four yea...
Fu Sheen Tannery and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Cal)76,[2003]262ITR456(Cal)
Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application the writ petitioner has challenged an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 32, thereby making an assessment under Section 144/145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has raised a pure question of law in support of this writ application and as such this writ application has been taken up for hearing before inviting affidavit from the respondents.2. Mr. Bhattacharjee points out that in the past another order was passed by such Assistant Commissioner and against such order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the said appellate authority by order dated August 31, 1999, set aside the order passed by the assessing authority. Mr. Bhattacharjee contends that after the assessment order was set aside by the appellate authority the said order attained finality and there was no scope of reassessme...
Fiat India Private Limited Vs. Rahul Udyog Viniog Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC101,(2003)3CALLT381(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is to consider an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging an order dated October 4, 2002 passed by Shri A. Bhattacharya, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fourth Court at Alipore, District: South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 69 of 2002.2. By the order impugned the learned trial Judge rejected an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the said Act of 1996 in short) filed by the defendant, the petitioner in this revisional application, on August 28, 2002.3. The association of the plaintiff, the opposite party No. 1 in this revisional application, with the defendant and its predecessor-companies was for a considerable period and the plaintiff was the dealer of various motor vehicles manufactured by the defendant and its predecessor-companies. From time to time the dealer agreements were entered into by and between the parties and on Januar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›