Kolkata Court June 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.
Sital Chandra Ganguly Vs. Ninth Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR294],(2004)IILLJ522Cal
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. The service of the workman was terminated under Clause 30 of the Standing Orders applicable to the employee. The competent authority had recorded its reasons that it had lost confidence in the workman. The fact discloses that on information the Police raided his house. By reason of having an inkling of this raid, the workman had fled from his house. While fleeing, he was intercepted and a billet allegedly manufactured by the employer company was recovered from the suitcase carried in the Rickshaw in which he was travelling. The workman had attempted to justify that the suitcase belonged to one Sri Chakraborty, a Fitter of the Company, who was accompanying him and just had gone to answer the call of nature. But the learned Tribunal did not believe the same. Evidence was adduced before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal had considered the same and had come to a finding that there was justification in the reasons given for dispensing with the enquiry and ter...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Tobacco Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)87ITD129(Kol.)
1. The appeal filed by the Department is directed against the order dt.13th April, 1998, passed by the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. The Revenue has moved a petition dt. 16th July, 1998, praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeallate by four days. The reasons given in the petition are found to be satisfactory. So, after hearing both the sides, we condone the said delay and admit the appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing deletion of total sales promotion and advertisement expenses of Rs. 58,12,463, which was disallowed in assessment in connection with 6 different parties and on account of display and sampling expenses, for detailed reasons discussed in the assessment order.4. The facts of the case in short are that the assessee filed return on 28th Oct., 1994, disclosing a total income of Rs. 15,64,960 which was taken up for scrutiny. While completing the assessment, the AO found that the assessee has debited t...
Satyendra Nath Boral and Smt. Anjali Mullick Vs. Mrityunjoy Dey and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT227(HC)
ORDER1. The appeal is treated as on the day's list and the stay application and the appeal are disposed of together. No affidavits are called for and as such the allegation in the petition cannot be taken to be admitted.2. Mr. Bose's client, the appellant, claiming himself to be an executor of a yet unprobated will of one of the deceased parties to a partition suit, made an application for being added as a party and one Hon'ble Judge of this Court allow that application. It was recorded that in spite of notice some of the respondents did not appear and contest the application for addition.3. Later on the said respondents made an application for recall of the order. It was an application in the nature of an application for recall of an ex parte order wherein the aggrieved party pleaded just cause for non-appearance.4. The said application for recall was allowed by a different Hon'ble Judge than the Judge who had passed the order initially.5. In support of the appeal Mr. Bose raised only...
West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Gilloram Gouri Shankar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-2003
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN380
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This appeal, at the instance of West Bengal State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as the 'Board') was filed impugning a judgment and order dated 25th February, 2003 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in GA. No. 2427 of 2002 arising out of Suit No. 322 of 1993.2. By the said order under appeal, the learned Judge rejected the application which contained several prayers.3. In the said application there is a prayer for condonation of delay in applying foe setting aside the ex parte decree dated 15th January, 2001 passed in Suit No. 322 of 1993. There is also a prayer for setting aside that decree. Prayer was also made for setting aside the order dated 20th January, 2002 passed in the execution application being G.A. No. 6 of 2002 and the dismissal of the execution proceeding.4. The learned Single Judge held, and in our view rightly, that if the prayer for setting aside the ex parte decree is allowed, the rest of the prayers are consequential and theref...
Sanjib Chakraborty and anr. Vs. Ramanath Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT500(HC)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. In course of hearing of the application for stay, the parties are agreed that the main appeal may be disposed of. Treating the appeal, by consent of the parties, as on the day's list, the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the materials placed before this Court, it appears that an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 1141 of 1997 was filed by the decree holder. In connection therewith the judgment debtor/appellant had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 101 of Code of Civil Procedure registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 6287 of 2000. But from the order appealed against, it appears that the Executing Court without disposing of the application under Order 21 Rule 101 of Code of Civil Procedure had disposed of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure. These facts are not in-dispute.3. The learned counsel f...
Shymal GuIn and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN230
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. Parties are present before me through their learned Advocates. Heard them at length.2. This is an application under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of the accused-petitioner, Shymal Guin and 2 others, seeking for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1942 of 2001 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code and for setting aside of the order dated 25-7-2002 taking cognizance for the second time after the supplementary chargesheet under Sections 498A/406/307 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted.3. The short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under :The opposite party No. 2, Smt. Sonali Guin, lodged a petition of complaint on 21-11-2001 before the learned S.D.J.M. Serampore being C. R. case No. 396 of 2001 against the present petitioners alleging inter alia that her marriage took place on 19-11-1999 and a huge dowry was given during her marriage. But even thereafter the accused-petit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shree Gopikishan Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Cal)1,[2003]262ITR568(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. In this case the question arises as to whether a building of a cold storage is a plant. Mr. Soumitra Pal, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, had sought to draw a distinction between a plant and a building. According to him, if it is a setting or canopy for sheltering a particular business, then it would not be a plant. The building has a more durability than a plant. Therefore, only the thermocole part of the building is the plant and not the rest. He relied on the decision in CIT v. Anand Theatres : [2000]244ITR192(SC) . Seeking to make a distinction on the facts, he drew inspiration from the said decision and contended that the building housing the cold storage can never be a plant since it has a distinct existence providing a shelter for housing the chambers being the thermocole part of the building which is less durable than the building. He attempted to draw a distinction on this aspect, namely, that the building which is a durable one is required to house...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Tds) and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR241(Cal)
Bhattacharya J. 1. By this writ application the writ petitioner has prayed for setting aside the decision to initiate prosecution against the petitioner under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the financial years mentioned in the prayer portion of this writ application. 2. There is no dispute that in the past the respondents authority issued a show cause notice upon the petitioner for explaining why prosecution under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for failure on the part of the company to pay to the credit of the Central Government, the tax deducted at source as required under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should not be initiated. 3. The petitioner had shown cause alleging that it had sufficient and valid ground. There is no dispute that although several hearings had taken place, no decision in writing was communicated to the petitioner about the result of such show cause. 4. It is alleged in this application that the petitioner ha...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Settlement Commission and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Cal)532,[2003]263ITR285(Cal)
Bhattacharya, J. 1. By this writ application the writ petitioner has challenged an order dated October 31, 2002 (annexure P-7 to the petition), passed by the Settlement Commission refusing to entertain the case on the ground that the failure on the part of the petitioner in deducting tax at source does not come within the purview of Section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Being dissatisfied the petitioner has come up with the instant application. 3. Therefore, the only question that falls for determination in this writ application is whether in the aforesaid circumstances, the Settlement Commission was justified in refusing to entertain the application filed by the petitioner. 4. To appreciate the aforesaid question, involved herein the provisions contained in Section 245C(1) are set out below : 'An assessee may, at any stage of a case relating to him, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and containing a full and true disclosure of his inco...
Shrimati Sikha Gorai Vs. Subodh Chandra Gorai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT230(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. The opposite party-husband instituted a matrimonial suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on June 11, 1997 as per Hindu rights and customs.2. In the wedlock a male child has been born and the child is now aged about four years. The male child is in the custody of the mother.3. The wife-petitioner in the said suit filed an application under Section 24 of the said Act of 1995 claiming alimony pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. The learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Asansol. District: Burdwan allowed the said application in part and directed the opposite party-husband to pay Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only to the petitioner-wife towards alimony pendente lite for herself and the minor son with effect from the date of filing of the said application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned judge assessed the arrears of maintenance at Rs. 90...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »