Kolkata Court February 2004 Judgments
West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Cal)245,[2004]267ITR345(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta J.1. By the instant writ application the petitioner has basically challenged an order dated June 13, 2003, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta-700 021, appointing Shri P. K. Agarwala as a special auditor under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and also incidentally the vires of Section 142(2A) of the said Act in so far as it covers the same field as Section 44AB of the said Act as regards its constitutionality. However, at the time of arguments the question of vires was not pressed by learned senior counsel Dr. Pal. The direction for filing of affidavits was given on two occasions, to understand the case of the Revenue, however, no affidavit was filed, so it was decided the matter should be heard without any affidavit-in-opposition.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is carrying on banking business after having been formed under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. The member...
Tag this Judgment!Jatindra Nath Mondal and ors. Vs. Sm. Harimoti Dassi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Cal188,(2004)2CALLT10(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This is a dispute between brother and sister. The brother originally instituted a suit as against the sister in 1987 allegedly terminating the licence of the sister in occupying the portion of the premises of their beloved father. Father, Gostha Behari Mondal, since deceased in 1941 or 1942 allowed her daughter, respondent herein to remain in the possession of the property with her husband Bepin Chandra Das since deceased. Father expired in between 1951 to 1952 survived by widow and the son and daughter as aforesaid. After 1956 (the crucial period for right of inheritance of the property of the female heir) Bepin, the husband of the sister/daughter of the pre-deceased, expired. The period of expiry of Bepin is about 1960.2. The suit which has been instituted by the brother for termination of the so-called licence of the sister was dismissed on contest by the Court of first instance from which an appeal was preferred. A remand order was passed by the Court of first appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushil Mukherjee Vs. Sagarika Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN621
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. 1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner/husband praying for revision of the order being No. 12 dated 3.12.98 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) in Mat. Suit No. 59 of 1997, by way of setting aside the same.2. The circumstances leading to the present application are that the petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for divorce where the respondent/O.P on her entering into appearance filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- p.m. & Rs. 300/-p.m. for self and her child respectively and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner, the suit was dismissed for default on 1.6.1998. The respondent/O.P. filed an application under Section 151, C.P. Code on 26.6.98 praying for restoration of the suit and for disposal of her application under Section 24 of the Act which was allowed by the imp...
Tag this Judgment!Allied Resins and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corpor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2004
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR1216],(2004)IIILLJ302Cal
A.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner Company praying for revision of the order dated April 7, 2003 passed by the learned Judge, E.I. Court in Tender Case No. 8/2003.2. The background history leading to the present application is that the O.P. Corporation demanded payment of Rs. 19,30,023/- towards employer's contribution with interest from April, 1996 to March, 1998 from the petitioner Company which then brought a proceeding under Section 75(1)(g) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 before the E.I. Court claiming certain reliefs followed by an application under Section 75(2-B) of the Act for waiving the deposit of 50% of the amount on account of its being a Sick Industry. The above application under Section 75(2-B) was disposed of by the impugned order directing the petitioner Company to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs by a specified date.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has moved this Court in revision. All that now r...
Tag this Judgment!Pintu Tewari (Minor) and ors. Vs. Ananta Narayan Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN597
Amitava Lala, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 11th April, 2001 and 21st April, 2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandi, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No. 64 of 1994. In the first appeal, the concerned Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court of first instance.2. The learned Court of first instance ordered and decreed that the suit be decreed on contest without cost. The cause of decree in the suit is consideration of the Clauses, being (m), (o) and (p) under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act precisely Clause (o) therein. The cardinal principle for coming to an appropriate conclusion in respect of Clause (o) is that the leased out property can be used, but cannot be destructed or caused permanent injury.3. The Appellate Court came to a conclusion that out of several grounds damage is one of the grounds for eviction which is falling under the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Based Ali and ors. Vs. W.B.S.E.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN222
Barin Ghosh, J. 1. Each of the petitioners, who have filed these writ petitions, seeks supply of electricity from the Board to energies his submersible pump. The petitioners of the writ petitions, being W. P. 13691 (W) of 2000, W. P. 13459 (W) of 2003, W. P. 14461 (W) of 2003, W. P. 15083 (W) of 2003, W. P. 15328 (W) of 2003, W. P. 15410 (W) of 2003, W. P. 15509 (W) of 2003, W. P. 15575 (W) of 2003, W. P. 15784 (W) of 2003, W. P. 16157 (W) of 2003, W. P. 16531 (W) of 2003, W. P. 16532 (W) of 2003, W. P. 17795 (W) of 2003, W. P. 18541 (W) of 2003, W. P. 18541 (W) of 2003, W. P. 2Q085 (W) of 2003 and W. P. 442 (W) of 2004, had applied for supply of electricity, the Board gave a quotation to each one of them, but the petitioners are contending that the quotations are exorbitant. They are contending that the Board is not entitled to claim the cost of the transformer and the expenses connected with installation of the transformer from the consumers. That appears to be the principal dispute ...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Mimani and anr. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN287
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. In this appeal an order dated 16th November, 1990, which was passed dismissing a pro interesse suo application, has been challenged.2. The material facts of the case are as under :A suit being Suit No. 406 of 1997 was filed by the Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Bank') against one Anamika Industries and its partners namely (1) Shri Rajkamal Prabhas and (2) Shri Prem Sehgal inter alia, on the ground that the respondents were unable to pay the dues of the Bank. The appellants were not parties to the said suit.3. In the said suit the bank filed an application for appointment of Receiver and injunction. On the said application, the learned Trial Court appointed Joint Receivers on 8.5. 1987 over the hypothecated stocks of the respondent No. 2 and an order of injunction was also passed restraining the respondents from dealing with and/or disposing of the hypothecated stocks.4. The sale of hypothecated stock could fetch Rs. 75,000/- and the same was ...
Tag this Judgment!Mayank Poddar and ors. and Magma Leasing Limited and ors. Vs. Developm ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal246,(2004)2CALLT290(HC),2004(2)CHN399
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Both the appeals were heard together as common questions of fact and law are involved.2. The subject-matter of challenge is a judgment and order dated 22nd May, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of the First Court holding, inter alia, that municipal rates and taxes as well as commercial surcharges and parking charges do not form part of the rent and the respondent is not liable to pay the same with the rent.3. The learned Judge in the judgment, under appeal, has recorded that at the ad interim stage, by an order dated 4th May, 2001, the Court directed the tenant to deposit admitted arrears of monthly rent in twenty equal monthly instalments along with the current rent to be paid on or before 7th of each month. The said order was passed in a suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for a decree of eviction of the sole defendant on the ground of the defendant's failure to pay monthly rent, car parking charges and the consolidated rates and taxes and commercial s...
Tag this Judgment!Basudeb Guchait Vs. Shankar Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT631(HC)
A. Lala, J. 1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the order being Order No. 122 dated 8th October, 1999 passed by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in an application for amendment of the Written Statement in Ejectment Suit No. 630 of 1985.2. It appears to this Court that the suit is based on the ground of Clauses (n), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff No. 1 was examined. As and when the plaintiff No. 2 wanted examination of the Engineer Commissioner, the defendant made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (then existing) with a prayer for amendment of the Written Statement to the extent as follows:'9(a) That this defendant states that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has again inducted various tenants in major portion of the suit building for commercial purpose and have allowed them to operate plant and machinery in relation to their...
Tag this Judgment!Madanlal Chakraborty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT616(HC),2004(4)CHN193
Amitava Lala, J.1. This civil revision case arises out of an order being order No. 35 dated 14th May, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in Misc. Case No. 18 of 1998. By making this application one Smt. Bina Roy, respondent-opposite party No. 2 herein contended before the Court below that the compromise of the appeal was obtained by practising fraud and mis-representation which was extensively heard by the learned Judge and ultimately he held in favour of such petitioner-opposite party No. 2 herein. The application was allowed on contest without imposing any cost. The compromise decree effected on 6th December, 1996 was set aside.2. According to the petitioner, originally one Sri Sailendra Nath Chakraborty (since deceased) executed a Will giving the property in favour of two sons which includes the petitioner herein. They obtained their probate. On the basis of the probate when they have called upon the postal authority to get ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »