Kolkata Court June 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Cal)86,[2004]266ITR257(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The appeal was admitted on the following two questions :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing to recompute the cost of the assets treating the gratuity liability as part of the actual cost of the assets and allow depreciation accordingly ?(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the consideration of Rs. 2 crores shown in the agreement is not the real consideration unless liability towards payment of gratuity is spread over the consideration shown ?'2. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the undertaking was taken over by the assessee. The agreement dt. 24th March, 1988, contains the following clauses :'1. (A) The vendor shall sell and the purchaser shall purchase the said industrial undertaking w.e.f. 26th day of March, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight hereinafter called 'the date of sale' as a going conc...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Kumar Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT441(HC)
B. Bhattacharyya, J.1. By this writ application, the writ petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondent/School Authority to forthwith give appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Class IV staff on the ground that he stood first in the panel and such panel had already been approved by the concerned District Inspector of Schools, Following facts are not in dispute:2. The petitioner appeared at the interview for the post of class IV staff from Scheduled Caste category and his name appeared at the top of the panel prepared by the Selection Committee. The School Authority endorsed the panel and submitted the same for approval before the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Howrah. It appears that District Inspector of Schools (SE), Howrah, approved the panel vide Memo No. 1291/N dated 3rd October, 2000. But the same was lost in its way to school. The School Authority thereafter requested the District Inspector of Schools concerned to supply the duplicate copy of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Kanoria and 4 ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT48(HC),2004CriLJ867,(2004)ILLJ72Cal
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. By filing the instant application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, one Mr. R.L. Kanoria and four others have come up before this Court seeking to quash the proceeding being Case No. C/2323/97 now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta under Section 406 of I.P.C. and/or for setting aside the order dated October 7, 1997 passed by the aforesaid learned Magistrate in the aforesaid proceeding alleging that they are the Directors of the Carbon Composites (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'said company') and the said company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing of various types of sports goods and they had a factory at Falta Processing Zone, Sector-I.2. Further it has been alleged by the petitioners that the Insurance Inspector of the complainant has lodged a complaint and subsequently a proceeding under Section 406 of I.P.C was initiated before the aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-2003
Reported in: [2003]131TAXMAN724(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.The appeal was admitted on the following two questions :'(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing to recompute the cost of the assets treating the gratuity liability as part of the actual cost of the assets and allow depreciation accordingly?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the consideration of Rs. 2.00 crores shown in the agreement is not the real consideration unless liability towards payment of gratuity is spread over the consideration shown ?'2. Pursuant to the agreement between the parties, the undertaking was taken over by the assessee. The agreement dated 24-3-1988 contains the following clauses :'1. (A) The Vendor shall sell and the Purchaser shall purchase the said Industrial Undertaking with effect from 26-3-1988 hereinafter called 'the date of sale' as a going concern and...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kr. Bose Vs. Jagabandhu Dhang
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal13,(2003)3CALLT539(HC)
A.K. Mitra, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 28.5.1991 and decree dated 4.6.1991 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 226/90 reversing the judgment dated 31.8.1990 and decree dated 7.9.1990 passed by the learned Munsif, 5th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 15 of 1987.2. The Title Suit No. 15 of 1987 relates to eviction of the defendant from the suit premises along with prayer for khas possession and mesne profits.3. The case as has been made out by the plaintiff in the plaint is, inter alia, as follows:The plaintiff is the absolute owner and landlord of the suit property and he got it by virtue of a deed of partition dated 16.5.1984. The said deed of partition was effected by and between the plaintiff, one Sri Dasharathi Dhang and Bholanath Dhang, amongst these three co-sharers. The defendant was a premises tenant under the plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 33/- only payable according to English Calender mo...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and ors. Vs. Miss. Lakshmi Khanna
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT96(HC)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The landlord of a premises sought to intervene in the probate proceeding in respect of a Will executed by the tenant in favour of an alleged stranger who as executor had applied for probate. The learned Probate Court denied intervention by the landlord-appellant on the ground that the landlord has no interest in the property. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that by the Will the tenant had bequeathed the right of tenancy in the property of which the appellant is the landlord who had initiated a suit for eviction against the tenant-testator. Therefore, by reason of the Will, the right of the landlord-appellant in respect of recovery of the tenanted premises would be affected and that as a landlord the appellant has an interest in the property, a subject matter in the probate proceedings. Therefore, the said finding adversely affects his right.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent, we are of the view that there is no substance...
Tag this Judgment!Amal Kumar Bose Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal148
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner herein has filed this application challenging the inaction on the part of the police authorities for taking steps to recover the vehicle which according to the petitioner has been taken away by the muscle men of HSBC Ltd. Admittedly, the said vehicle was taken under the Hire Purchase Agreement executed with the HSBC Ltd.2. The learned Counsel of the petitioner submits that the monthly instalment for the month of May, 2003 could not be paid due to the failure of the Banker of the petitioner and due to the non-payment of the said instalment the muscle men of HSBC Ltd. took forcible possession of the vehicle from the petitioner on 7-6-2003.3. The learned Counsel of the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 admits that no order has been obtained from any Court of law for taking possession of the said vehicle in terms of the hire purchase agreement. According to the learned Counsel of the Bank, the possession of the vehicle was taken under the agreement ...
Tag this Judgment!C.E.S.C. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Cal)124,[2003]263ITR402(Cal)
D.K. SETH, J. :Facts1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 10th Sept., 2001, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 598 of 2001, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.2. In the writ petition the petitioners have challenged two notices. One dt 8th March, 2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. Circle-2(6), (Dy. CIT) Mumbai, treating CESC Ltd. as 'representative assessee'/'agent' of the non-resident assessee Linklaters & Paines, U.K. (L&P;) under Section 163 of the IT Act, 1961. The other notice is dt. 20th of March, 2001, passed by the same officer under Section 148 seeking to reopen the assessment of the non-resident for the asst. yr. 1998-99 at the hands of the CESC requiring to submit return as 'representative assessee' of L&P.;The challenge3. The petitioners/appellants have challenged the said two notices on the ground that each of these two notices are integral part of the cause of action against which relief is ...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Trading Co. and anr., Vs. Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT26(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. These writ petitions were made for the common purpose. Therefore, the Court was pleased to direct to hear out all the writ petitions analogously. Several applications were also made in connection with the main writ petition. However, by making these writ petitions, petitioners wanted cancellation and/or withdrawal of a notice under seal and signature of the Estate Officer under Sub-section (1) and Clause (b)(iii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The notice in the nature of show cause is issued to give reply why the eviction should not be made to the respective petitioners. It is apparent that the respective petitioners were called upon in person or through a duly authorized representative capable to answer material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence which is intended to be produced in support of the cause shown at a personal hearing and a further notice was given that in case of...
Tag this Judgment!Bijoy Kumar Rajgarhia and Naresh Kumar Rajgarhia Vs. Life Insurance Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN170
G.C. De, J.1. Both the suits were filed on 3rd August, 1973 against the Life Insurance Corporation of India prayer for a decree for recovery of money due on two separate policies of Insurance issued by Ruby General Insurance Company, along with interest and other reliefs.2. In suit No. 354 of the 1973 Shri Naresh Kumar Rajgarhia prayed for a decree of Rs. 50,699.41p, after calculating interest @ 7% per annum from 29th July, 1970 till the filing of the suit on Rs. 41,900.41p. Similarly, in suit No. 355 of 1973 Shri Bijoy Kumar Rajgarhia prayed for a decree of Rs. 50,652.31 p. after calculating interest in the same manner indicating hereinabove on Rs. 41,861.41p.3. In both the suits prayers were also made for pendente lite as well as post degree interest.4. The plaint case in both the suits in brief is that policies for life were taken by Smt. B. D. Rajgarhia in the year 1956. She also took two separate loans from the defendant Corporation for Rs. 4615/- each on the basis of the said two...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »