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.
Krishna Kumar Mundhra Vs. Narendra Kumar Anchalia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR469(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. This application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has since been filed on the strength of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the respondent/judgment debtor against whom an Award is sought to be executed. Learned counsel in support of the application has taken three grounds to point out that the Award is a nullity. The first ground is that before referring the dispute to the Arbitrators requesting them to enter into the Arbitration, no notice of dispute was given to the respondent, as contemplated under Section 21 of the 1996 Act. According to him, straightway the matter was referred to the Arbitrators as would be evident from Annexure B to the application at page 28 thereof The second ground is that without the consent of the respondent or without taking recourse to law, the third Arbitrator was appointed by the two Arbitrators named in the agreement. Therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal was incompetent to arbitrate the matter. ...
Tamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT51(HC),[2004(101)FLR509]
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition is a Judgment and Order dated 8.5.2003 passed in O.A. No. 5667 of 1998 and O.A. No. 1005 of 2001. By the said Judgment and Order the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the 'said Tribunal') dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.2. The material facts of this case are, that the writ petitioner was appointed on temporary basis to the post of Sergeant in Calcutta Police, some time on 7th September, 1986 and thereafter he joined the regular post of Sergeant after completion of training.3. At the material point of time, the petitioner was posted in Jorasanko Police Station of Calcutta Police. Such posting of the petitioner started in the month of May, 1995. On 8th of July, 1996, the petitioner was arrested in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 315, dated 30.6.1996 under Sections 366/376 of the IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 9th July, 1...
Kayan Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: 2004(165)ELT398(Cal)
ORDERBarin Ghosh, J.1. Despite directions for affidavits were given, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed to the present writ petition.2. The petitioner-company owns a factory, where it used to manufacture tin containers and for that purpose used to purchase tin plates. It is an as-sessee under the Central Excise Act and had been extended the benefit of Mod-vat. A raid was conducted at the factory of the petitioner-company by the Excise authorities. In course of raid, various documents of the petitioners were seized. The petitioner asked for copies thereof. The petitioner was asked to take copies thereof, which the petitioner could not take for some reason or the other. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued and in that it was indicated that the petitioner-company evaded excise duty. The reasons in support thereof had been indicated. It was mentioned that there is wide difference in relation to inputs in the Modvat account and in the profit and loss account and balance sheet...
Shri Sambhunath Das Vs. Airports Authority of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT176(HC),[2004(101)FLR605]
J.K. Biswas, J. 1. By this writ petition dated 27th August 2002 the petitioner challenged the decision contained in paragraph 3(i) of the order dated 14th May 2002 (annexure P-14). It was given by the General Manager (Pres) of the respondent 'Airport Authority of India'. The impugned decision is quoted below:'(i) Payment of Salary for the stay away period: Sri Das was not on the roll of AAI from 17.10.85 to 16.11.99. Though he claimed that he did not take alternate employment during this period, the fact remains that he did not work in AAI during this period. And therefore, after careful consideration of the above as well as the AAI Rules, his request for payment of salary for the stay away period is not agreed to. However, as a special case, it has been decided to consider this period as 'dies-non' so that he does not lose effect of previous service in calculation of his CPP, Gratuity etc. at the time of his superannuation.'2. In 1985 the petitioner was working as A.E. (E), and was po...
C.E.S.C. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)87ITD653Cal
1. This appeal is directed against the order dt. 27th Feb., 1998, passed by the CIT (West Bengal-I), under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and in the matter of 'no objection certificate' issued by the Dy. CIT, Spl. Range 11, Kolkata, authorizing CESC Ltd. to remit a sum of UK 52,000 to one M/s Mott Ewbank Preece of UK, after deducting the tax at source @ 5 per cent of the gross amount.2. Although the assessee has raised nine grounds of appeal, we deem it fit and proper to begin with addressing ourselves to the core grievance of the assessee that the 'no objection certificate' sought to be revised by the impugned order was not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch as, consequent to the 'no objection certificate' in question, the assessee had to deduct tax at source @ 5 per cent whereas no tax was really required to be deducted at source from the remittance in question.3. Briefly, the facts. CESC Ltd. also known as Calcutta Electrici...
Tara Properties Ltd. Vs. Bhagirathi Agarwala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT64(HC),[2006]133CompCas223(Cal),[2004]52SCL158(Cal)
A.N. Ray, J.1. Once the facts in this case are gripped, it would be realised that there is very little left for the Court of appeal to do.2. The appeal is from an Order of the Company Court passed along with the judgment on the 6th of August, 2001 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose.3. The facts in brief are as follows.Details are left out for the purpose of setting out the substance in as brief a compass as possible.4. The four main persons involved are Tarachand Agarwal, who died on 18th March, 1995, his wife Dankha Debi, who died in 2001, their elder son Bhagirath, who was the petitioner in the Court below and the respondent there, who is his younger brother Chandra Prakash, and who is the appellant.5. The Company was incorporated sometime in or about 1962, at which time Tarachand was all in all there. The authorised share capital of the company numbered only 5000 units. Initially Dankha had 3010 shares, Tarachand 10 shares and the two sons 10 shares each.6. Sometime aft...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sailendra Nath Bera and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1018
P.K. Samanta, J.1. This application by the insurance company is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.3.2000 as passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a petition for review of original award dated 6.1.2000 by the claimant.2. The facts which are not disputed are as follows:The claimant faced a motor accident on 27.9.1997 while he was employed in Gun and Shell Factory, Cossipore, Calcutta with a monthly salary of Rs. 7,526 only. The said claimant filed a claim case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal alleging that he suffered permanent partial disablement. Considering the age of the claimant on the date of determination of the aforesaid claim case, the multiplier of 8 was selected as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the purpose of computation of the compensation for the disability caused by such non-fatal accident. In view of the finding by the doctor that the claimant had suffered permanent disablement to th...
Dipak Haldar and Two ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT579(HC)
J. Banerjee, J.1. The present appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated 25-10-90 passed by additional District & Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore. Appellants, namely, Dipak Haldar, Khokan @ Prodip Haldar and Dipali Haldar, by the impugned judgment were convicted under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years each and they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months each. In addition to that, accused Dipak Haldar was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances leading to the prosecution of the accused/appellants are as follows:-The deceased Rimu daughter of Bimalendu Ganguly was married to accused Dipak Haldar on 18.2.86. Bimalendu failed to pay the agreed dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- on the date of marriage. Although the other articles which he agreed to give by way of marriage gift were dul...
Prativa Devi (Mukherjee) and ors. Vs. Dipak Kumar Sanyal and State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN85
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. Parties are present before me and heard them. Since common questions of law are involved in both the cases, they are being taken up for disposal analogously by a single order.2. The petitioners, Smt. Prativa Devi (Mukherjee) and two others have come with this application under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceeding in complaint case No. C-359/02 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat, North 24-Parganas under Sections 417/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the opposite party No. 1 was the father-in-law of the petitioner No. 2 and the marriage was solemnised on 25th January, 2000 between the petitioner No. 2 and the daughter of the opposite party No. 1. But due to differences of opinion and mentality, both the petitioner No. 2 and the daughter of the opposite party No. 1 filed a petition of divorce on mutual consent on 26.2.2001 and ultimately, they got a decree of divorce under Sectio...
SaharuddIn Naskar and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and 7 ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN429
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. In the present application the petitioners have challenged an order dated 11.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 2(6) 2003 thereby framing charge under Sections 302/34/498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. Over the incident of death of one Samsunnehar Bibi Bishnupur P. S. Case No. 106 dated 13.4.98 was registered under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Humayun Mollah (present O. P. No. 2) against the present petitioners.3. Petitioner No. 5 herein also lodged a complaint before the learned S. D. J. M. on the death of his wife Samsunnehar Bibi. Said complaint was forwarded to Bishnupur police station and was registered as Bishnupur P. S. Case No. 170 dated 22.6.98 under Sections 149/302/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code against the present Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 8.4. On completion of investigation police submitted chargesheet in Bishnupur P. S. c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »