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.
Sardarmull Kankaria Vs. Calcutta Improvement Trust and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN309
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The appellant was the owner of Plot No. 14 of Scheme No. LXVI, CIT Scheme. The property was initially numbered as 19, Chatawalla Gullee. In or about 1955 the subject property was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of an improvement scheme under the Calcutta Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT'). Section 81 of the Calcutta Improvement Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 1911') provides for disposal of the land found to be surplus by the CIT. Section 81 of the said Act being relevant herein is quoted below:'81. Power to dispose of land.--(1) The Board may retain, or may let on hire, lease, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of, any land vested in or acquired by them under this Act.(2) Whenever the Board decide to lease or sell any land acquired by them under this Act from any person, they --(a) shall give notice by advertisement in local newspapers, and(b) shall offer to the said pe...
Pankaj Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN346
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. On 23rd June, 1986 the petitioner was granted a mining lease for five years. It gave him right to extract sand from an area of 6.98 acres of river bed of the river 'Damodar.' The area was identified by plot Nos. 1951 to 1955, in Mouja Gaitanpur in Burdwan District of the State of West Bengal. The lease was granted under the West Bengal Minor Minerals Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Rules were framed by the Government of West Bengal in exercise of power conferred by Section 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1956. According to terms of the lease, the petitioner was entitled to apply for renewal thereof for a like period. The lease was drawn up in the Standard Form of lease (that is, Form-E) as required by Rule 22 of the Rules. Clause 8 of Part-IX of the Standard Form of lease provides as follows:'8. Recovery under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act.-- Without prejudice to any other mode of recovery ...
Vinod Kothari Consultants Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)91ITD153(Kol.)
1. There is a difference of opinion between Accountant Member and Judicial Member for which the case was referred to the Hon'ble President for nominating 3rd Member. The Hon'ble President nominated Vice-President(KZ) as 3rd Member. Accordingly, the case was heard by the Hon'ble Vice-President as 3rd Member, who vide his order dated 04.08.2003 concurred with the conclusion of the Judicial Member in preference to that of Account member.2. Therefore, in view of the majority decision, assessee's appeal is dismissed.As a result of difference of opinion between the two Members of the Division Bench, I have been nominated by the Hon'ble President, as third Member, for deciding the following point of difference in the appeal of the assessee: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payment of Rs. 2 lakhs made by the assessee to M/s. Wise Men's Consultancy Co. P. Ltd under an agreement to provide to the assessee all its training...
Dipendra Narayan Munshi Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ731Cal
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The appellant was an employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Board'). A disciplinary proceeding was drawn against the appellant on the following charges:Articles of charge against Sri D.N. Munshi, SAE(E) attached to Coochbehar (D) Division.2. Whereas it appears that Sri D.N. Munshi, SAE(E), joined as Station Superintendent, Mathabhanga Group Electric Supply on November 9, 1995 and attended the meeting on November 10, 1995 at Jalpaiguri (Dist.) Circle which was presided by the Member (Distribution). It was decided in the meeting to liquidate all the pending applications and pending connections upto September 30, 1995 straight cases within December 31, 1995 and the complicated cases within March 31, 1996. Complicated cases means the cases where poles will be required or where system requires to be improved.And3. Whereas it appears that, Sri D.N. Munshi, S.S Mathabhanga Group Electric Supply submitted one report ...
Amalendu Sahoo and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Cal)326,[2003]264ITR16(Cal)
Barin Ghosh J.1. None appears on behalf of the petitioners. A property belongs to the petitioners. The United Bank of India is a tenant of a portion of the said property. It appears that there were certain disputes between the petitioners and the bank for quite some time, and accordingly rents were not paid to the petitioners. On December 16, 1998, the bank agreed to pay a rent of Rs. 6,20,512 to the petitioners but at the same time proposed to deduct a sum of Rs. 99, 198 on account of income-tax deducted at source. The principal grievance in the instant writ petition appears to be in relation to such deduction. 2. In the body of the petition it has not been established that the petitioners had individually rented out a portion of the property to the bank prior to the bank agreeing to pay the sum of Rs. 6,20,512 on December 16, 1998. The petition, however, shows that a memo of agreement was entered with the bank on January 13, 1999, whereby the petitioners individually agreed to rent o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orissa Concrete and Allied Industries L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT159(HC),(2003)185CTR(Cal)315,[2003]264ITR186(Cal)
1. Certain submissions made on behalf of the applicant when the application for condonation of delay was taken up for consideration have prompted us to take a closer look at the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and its application to the application and appeal filed by the applicant. 2. In order to appreciate the submissions made the provisions of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act are reproduced hereinbelow :'Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.--Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.' 3. Mr. Dipak Deb, learned counsel, appearing in support of the application, submitted before us that in making an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act a party was not ...
Debasis Sarkar Vs. Abdul Hai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT215(HC)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.06.1998 delivered by a learned single judge of this Court in W.P. No. 3783(W) of 1997 and by the said judgment, the learned single judge had allowed the writ petition.2. The appellant along with others applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Work Education in Golabari High School (hereinafter referred as the 'said school') and appeared before the selection Committee which, after selection, prepared a panel and the appellant came first in the panel. After the said panel was approved by the Managing Committee of the said school and was sent for approval of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Dakshin Dinajpur, the respondent No. 1 in this appeal moved a writ petition being C.O. No. 3639(W) of 1996.3. In the said writ petition, the contentions of the respondent No. 1 were that the names of the persons above him in the said panel were wrongly included and, as such, the said panel should hot be appr...
Aloke Jyoti Maitra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN297
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the writ petitioner, claiming to be an organiser teacher, has prayed for setting aside the order dated January 29, 2002 passed by the Director of School Education and has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to grant order of approval to the appointment of the petitioner, as such organiser teacher.2. The case made out by the petitioner may be summarized thus:a) Thiba Anchal Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as 'the school') was initially recognized as a IV Class Junior High School by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education w.e.f. 1.5.1991.b) The Managing Committee and other interested persons of the locality decided to open Class IX and X in the school as there was no other high school in the said locality.c) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Physical Education to teach the students by a resolution dated 9th July, 1993 and that the petitioner had sufficient qualification for being appoin...
i.C.i. India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(161)ELT127(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. The petitioners challenged a show cause-cum-demand notice under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 issued by the Collector-I, Central Excise, Calcutta-II, Collectorate, Calcutta. Under normal circumstances, Writ Courts are very slow in interfering with any show cause notice. However, this is not a show cause notice simpliciter but a show cause-cum-demand notice which is obviously derived from a reason to believe that there is a genuine cause of issuance of such notice. Whether the Writ Court will interfere or will not interfere that will depend upon various circumstances. It is well-settled by now that the Writ Courts are maintaining restraint in interfering with the disputes which are to be adjudicated by the authority wherefrom alternative remedy is available. A show cause notice may be construed as an initial stage of a process of an Executive authority. Therefore, it is needless to say that in such circumstances. Court should not interfere w...
Brookebond Lipton India Limited Vs. First Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN414
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the writ petitioner, an employer, has challenged an award dated June 6, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, First Industrial Tribunal, in Case No. VIII-318 of 1986.2. The private respondent was a driver of the petitioner/Company. On June 21, 1976, the petitioner formulated the following charges against the private respondent and issued show cause:1) That on 11.6.1976 about 3.15 p.m. you presented an application for casual leave for a period of five days to the Administrative Adviser with effect from 14.6.76, when you were told that your application could not be considered as too many drivers were already away on leave, and your request would be renewed on 22.6.76. On hearing this, you behaved in a most indisciplined and insolent manner and shouted back at the Administrative Adviser: 'Saif Khan is going today. He does not wait for Brooke Bond's permission'. So anything you left his office.2) That at about 2.45 p.m. on the same day i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »