Kolkata Court August 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.
Pradip Kumar Bhowmick Vs. Basanti Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal238
Narayan Chandra Sil, J.1. The facts of the suit in brief are that one Smt. Kalpana Rani Bhowmick, a Hindu governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law died on 2nd day of January, 1992 at 54A, Pratapaditya Road. Kolkata-700026 outside the jurisdiction of this Court after having made and published her last Will and Testament dated 15th March, 1975 corresponding to the 1st day of Chaitra, 1381 B.S. and the said Will was duly registered in the office of the Registrar of Assurance, Calcutta. In the said Will the Testatrix appointed her husband, Jagannath Bhowmick, the sole Executor in order to obtain Probate of the said Will. Before the said Executor obtained probate of the said Will he died intestate on 11-6-1997 at the same residence. The present petitioners being both the sons of the Testatrix and the Executor appointed by her are the ultimate legatees and beneficiaries named in the Will. In the said Will the Executor-husband of the Testatrix was given lifetime estate in respect of the said...
Sethia Oils Limited and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: [2004]137STC41(Cal)
ORDERBarin Ghosh, J.1. Schedule IV of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 describes the goods, on sale whereof tax is leviable. Admittedly, in that Schedule de-oiled rice bran has not been mentioned as one of the goods, on sale of which tax is leviable. However, Clause No. 253 of the said Schedule provides that items of goods not specified by name or description, other than the goods specified in Schedule I or Schedule VIIIA, shall also be the goods, on sale of which tax is leviable. In terms of Clause 253 of Schedule IV, therefore, tax is leviable on de-oiled rice bran unless the same is specified in Schedule I or Schedule VIIIA.2. There is no dispute that neither in Schedule I, nor in Schedule VIIIA, de-oiled rice bran has been specified. In Schedule I goods have been specified on sale of which tax is not leviable. Clause 14(c)(ii) thereof describes husk and bran of all cereals and pulses except rice bran when sold on or after April 1, 2000. Therefore, if rice bran was sold on or bef...
Swapan Kumar Pani Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-2003
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN74
1. In this appeal, several disciplinary proceedings which were initiated in respect of the similar matter have been referred to. Those proceedings ended with an order of review.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner/appellant was an Accountant, Jaipur Road, Orissa Branch of Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). Against the appellant, the first chargesheet dated 20.5.1987 was issued with allegations, inter alia, for unauthorised removal of certain bearer bonds with ulterior motive. Against such chargesheet, an enquiry was held and after enquiry, the enquiry authority found that the appellant was not guilty of the charges, The disciplinary authority also agreed with such finding and the appellant was exonerated of the charges levelled against him. This order was passed by the Deputy General Manager of the said Bank on 29.3.1989.3. Thereafter, another chargesheet was immediately issued on 31.3.1989 against the appellant. In the said chargesheet, the allegation...
Ratan Kumar Khaitan Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: III(2004)BC224,(2004)1CALLT183(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated January 6, 2003 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-Ill, Calcutta in T.R.P. No. 33 of 2002.2. The opposite party No. I/United Bank of India initiated a proceeding against the certificate debtors for recovery of its claim and obtained a certificate against the certificate debtors. For satisfaction of the dues of the bank premises No. 3 Panchu Dhobani Gali, Calcutta has been put to sell.3. The father of the petitioner in this application, Gopal Lal Khaitan, was inducted as a tenant in respect of the said premises under an agreement, executed by the opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 on May 1, 1968. The tenancy commenced from May 13, 1968. Upon the death of the said Gopal Lal Khaitan, the said tenancy devolved upon the petitioner in this application.4. The receiver appointed by the Tribunal in the recovery proceeding inserted advertisements once in the Statesman, o...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Hooghly Mills Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ5Cal
Girish Chandra Gupta, J. 1. The disputed amount was over Rs. 14 lakhs. The opposite party employer prayed for waiver of the requirement of deposit of at least 50 per cent of the disputed amount. Proviso to Section 75(2-B) of Employees' State Insurance Act authorises the Court to pass an order of waiver of compulsory deposit, but such a discretion can be exercised for reasons to be recorded.2. The learned Court below, in this case, has directed the opposite party herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,18,000 but no reasons have been indicated for exercise of this discretion. In the absence of reasons, this exercise of discretion is prima facie vitiated.3. Notice of this application was directed to be given by this Court on July 23, 2003. Notice was duly given and has been received by the opposite party on July 25, 2003, as would appear from the A/D cards annexed to the affidavit of service filed herein by the petitioner. It is, thus clear that inspite of sufficient notice the opposite parties...
Vinod Kothari Consultants (P) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-2003
Reported in: (2004)84TTJ(Kol.)1058
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the CIT(A)'s order for the asst. yr. 1996-97 in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. Although the assessee has raised seven elaborate grounds of appeal, in substance, the solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction in respect of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the assessee to M/s Wise Men's Consultancy Co. (P) Ltd. towards purchase of training materials, contact data base, software and other training aids.3. Briefly stated, material facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had included the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 paid to M/s Wise Men's Consultancy Co.(P) Ltd. (in short M/s Wise Men's Consultancy) as seminar expenses. The AO further observed that the assessee-company took over the business of M/s Wise Men's Consultancy of conducting training courses in the field of leasing and hire-purchases and related areas ...
Mira Banik and anr. Vs. Smita Bhattacharyya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN261
D. K. Seth, J.1. This appeal will be heard. No notice need be issued. Records need not be called for.In Re: CAN 5872 of 2003When the application for interim order was taken up, Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel for the respondents, appears and opposes the grant of interim order. Both Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Chatterjee, appearing for the respondents had made their respective submission on the application. Virtually both have addressed the Court on the merits of the appeal itself. Therefore, by consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list for hearing and is taken up for hearing and is disposed of as under.2. It appears that 'A' Schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant No. 1 sometimes in December 2002. In the plaint, the date of purchase has not been mentioned. In paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, the following statements have been made :'4. That the property described in Schedule-A...
In Re: Kollal Dasgupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3494
ORDERPradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. Parties are present. Heard them.2. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of the petitioner, Paresh Chandra Roy, seeking to quash the proceeding being C-715 of 2002, now pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore under Sections 504/506/500 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The short facts leading to the filing of this revisional application are as under :--The present petitioner is a public servant at present discharging his duty as Officer-in-Charge of Titagarh Police Station. It has been stated by the petitioner that on 12-12-2002, one Anil Kanti Das of Kalia Niwas (South), near Shib Mandir, Post Office Nona Chandanpukur, Police Station Titagarh, District North 24 Parganas has lodged a First Information Report with the Titagarh Police Station alleging that on 11-10-2002 at about 10.30 a.m. a group of People of Kalia Niwas Puja Committee consisting of about ...
Sri Sushil Kumar De and anr. Vs. Smt. Chhaya De and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT197(HC),2004(1)CHN1
P.K. Ray, J.1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner challenging the order dated 17th May, 2002 passed by learned 5th Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore in Miscelleneous Case No. 7 of 2002, arising out of title suit No. 18 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the application dated 1st April 2002 of the plaintiff/petitioner praying recall of the order dated 27th March, 2002 passed in Msic. Case No. 7 of 2002 was rejected. The opposite parties of this revisional application has raised the question of maintainability of this revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the impugned order is an appealable order. Hence, before going into the merit of the matter, this Court heard the parties on issue about maintainability of the revisional application.2. Before dealing with the said question, a factual matrix is required to be dealt with for proper adjudication of the issue. M...
Anukul Chandra Sadhukhan Vs. Ajit Kumar Sadhukhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal170,2004(2)CHN160
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant filed a partition suit on 16.2.1977 along with the prayer for relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act in respect of the purchase made by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 25.1.1977. The plaintiff alleged that the properties described in Schedule 'Ka' and 'Kha'; of the plaint constituted their ancestral dwelling house and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased a portion of the same by the aforesaid deed dated 15.1.1977. Since the respective shares of the parties were not in dispute, so the suit was decreed in its preliminary form on contest but the petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act as filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed on merits. Such dismissal by the Trial Court was challenged in appeal. The Court of Appeal below affirmed the said order of dismissal. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment and order of dismissal of the said petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act as filed by the plaintiff-ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »