Kolkata Court October 2004 Judgments
Subhash Datta and Anr. Vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT507(HC),2005(1)CHN483
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by Sri Subhas Datta and Another inter alia challenging the transfer of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court to other High Courts.2. The petitioners have prayed for stay of such transfer orders as according to them they are entitled to have information under Section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 as to why the said two Hon'ble Judges of this Court are transferred to other High Courts.3. According to the petitioners one of the Hon'ble Judges passed an order by stopping public rallies on the working days to mitigate the immense hardship suffered by commoners. As a retaliation one political leader of the State made a statement against the learned Judge before the media which has resulted in a contempt proceeding now pending before a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court.4. According to the petitioner the other learned Judge presiding over the Division Bench taking Public Interest Litigation and Environment matt...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD557Cal
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 14.5.2003 passed by the ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 1996-97. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as under :- i) That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the A.O. to allow deduction Under Section 80IA before adjustment of brought forward loss. ii) That the appellant prays that the order of ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.2. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was stated by the assessee before the A.O. that the deduction Under Section 80IA should be allowed first, and thereafter, the set off of loss brought forward from earlier years should be allowed. This claim of the assessee was not accepted by the A.O. as the A.O. was of the view that first gross total income is to be computed and thereafter the deduction has to be made. It was further stated by the A....
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Poddar Projects Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-18-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD468(Kol.)
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the ld.CIT(A)'s order dated 7th March, 2002 for the assessment year 1998-99.The assessee has also filed a Cross Objection in connection with the appeal filed by the Revenue.2. The only issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is with regard to the inclusion of amount actually collected by the assessee from the tenants on regular basis aggregating to Rs. 36,72,918/- which represents surcharge on Municipal tax.3. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue is now squarely and fully covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of ITAT, Special Bench reported in (2004) 88 ITD 247(SB) in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1997-98. Respectfully following the Special Bench decision, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is reversed and that of the A.O. is restored. This ground is, therefore, decided in favour of the Revenue.4. Now coming to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, we observe tha...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Khamaru and anr. and Chandi Charan Das and anr. Vs. State of West ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT620(HC),2005(1)CHN527
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from twin appeals preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Id. Sessions Judge, Howrah in Sessions Trial Case No. II (10)87 on 30.01.1999.2. A thumbnail sketch of the prosecution case is that on 22.06.1997 in the evening the defacto complainant after witnessing a video show in the house of Balaram Mal of the locality returned to house with her daughter Sumita Santra who works in a rope factory. At night while the said Sumita was taking meal, on being informed by her uncle Sukumar @ Habu that Raju Khamaru, with whom she had a love affair, was calling her, she on stopping of taking meal went away with Raju being accompanied by accused Simon, Chandi & Bablu which was noticed by the complainant's sister Sasthi Santra. She did not return house even after 10.00 p.m. On 23.06.1997 the defacto complainant's near relatives searched for her from the morning. At about 9.30 a.m. on being informed by a few local...
Tag this Judgment!Mongat Ram Singh and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN421
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of two convicts in respect of charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed against the findings of guilt dated 10th August, 1.999 and the consequent sentence dated 11th August, 1999 by which they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of such fine, they were directed to undergo a further imprisonment for a period of one month.2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summarised thus:(a) At the instance of the Commandant, 140 Battalion of Border Security Force, a written complaint was lodged before the police that on July 31,1995 at about 19:30 hrs., one B.S.F. Constable named Basant Singh of his Unit was murdered at Bhutkirhat at a distance of about 150 yards from the State High Way No. 12A by some unknown miscreants of Bhutkirhat on that day.(b) On the basis of such complaint, Rajganj P.S. Case No. 61 of 1995 dated July 31, ...
Tag this Judgment!Angel's Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Anand Mehta and Co. and Anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN357
Narayan Chandra Sil, J.1. Both the suits have been taken up together for hearing in terms of the order dated 15th July, 2002 passed by Mr. Justice Sengupta in C.S. No. 32 of 2002. Accordingly common issues in both the suits which are, in fact, the cross-suits, were framed on 27.4.2004 and issue No. 1 reads as 'Is C.S. No. 32 of 2002 maintainable ?' In the present discussion heroinbelow the said issue No. 1 on maintainability of C.S. No. 32 of 2002 is taken up for disposal.2. In C.S. No. 32 of 2002 M/s. Angel's Consultants Private Limited and Ajay Singh Lodha arc the plaintiffs whereas Anand Mehta & Co. and Mr. Anand Mohta are the defendants. The position is almost reverse in E.O.S. No. 6 of 2002. There Anand Chandra Mehta is the plaintiff and M/s. Angel's Consultants Private Limited is the defendant. In fact E.O.S. No. 6 of'2002 was initially filed before the City Civil Court, Calcutta and it was pending before the learned Judge, VIIth Bench, City Civil Court and there it was registere...
Tag this Judgment!Aska Investments Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Grob Tea Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT186(HC),2005(1)CHN659,[2005]61SCL134(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The moot question involved in this appeal is whether the Take Over Code contemplates identical consequences in case of breach of Chapter II or Chapter III under Regulation 97.2. Appellants held 14.12% shares in the company. The company in its meeting of the shareholders wanted to bring in an unaccounted sum as liability towards the company. Being aggrieved by that the present proceeding under sections 397 and 398 was filed by the appellants. The said sums surfaced when there was raid by the Income-tax Authorities on 6th August, 1998. The Income-tax Authorities found hidden income of Rs. 1 crore and directed payment of tax of Rs. 66.28 lac. The company had to pay the said sum. The management attempted to bring that liability in the accounts of the company to the detriment of the company and its shareholders. During the pendency of the Section 397 proceeding the respondents made an application under Section 111A(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 for rectification o...
Tag this Judgment!Shila Sanyal and anr. Vs. Provat Kumar Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN38
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2001 passed by learned Second Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Alipore, 24-Parganas (S) in Title Appeal No. 233 of 1998 thereby affirming the judgment dated 30th July, 1998 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), First Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 584 of 1991.2. The background of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:Respondent No. 1, namely, Provat Kumar Pal, as plaintiff, filed a suit being Title Suit No. 584 of 1991 for eviction and recovery of possession. While claiming to be the owner of the suit property, he stated that the defendants are tenants at monthly rental of Rs. 275/- payable according to English Calender month. He claimed that he has reasonable requirement of the suit premises for his own use and occupation as well as for his family. He does not have reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. Notice of ejectment dated 05.10.1991 was served upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Pol India Agencies Ltd. and anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Customs and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN249
Soumitra Pal, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 6.10.95 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India dismissing the revisional application and upholding the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta wherein it has been held there was short-landing of cargo.2. The short point is whether there was short-landing of cargo which warranted imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act.3. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the burden of proof regarding short-landing lies with the customs authorities. If doubts persists penalty cannot be imposed. Submission was made that tally sheets showed that 28 packets landed but the consignee declared that he received 43 packets. Outturn report revealed that there was delivery of 43 packets. In the same outturn report, Calcutta Port Trust declared that there was excess of one carton and one packet. The consignee was offered one carton and ...
Tag this Judgment!West Bengal Madrasah Education Board and anr. Vs. Shaikh Sahajamal and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN67
1. The writ petitioners/ respondents approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 12436(W) of 1999 and W.P. No. 17325(W) of 2001 challenging the grounds for not recognizing the Madrasah established by the writ petitioners/ respondents. The learned Judge dealt with the grounds upon which refusal to recognize was based, and while doing so took note of the fact that while one or two of the facilities available at the Madrasah established by the writ petitioners/ respondents are better than similar facilities available with other similarly placed institutions, which have got recognition, the Government and the Board have decided not to recognize the Madrasah established by the writ petitioners/ respondents for such shortcomings in relation to those facilities. It was pointed out that one of the facilities available with the Madrasah established by the writ petitioners/ respondents, is classrooms measuring about 280 sq. ft. each, which was termed as inadequate, but, schools having classrooms me...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »