Kolkata Court March 2004 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.
Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT657(HC)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. This is an application under Sections 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. By this application the petitioner wants to enforce a foreign award. It was filed in the Court of the District Judge of South 24-Parganas at Alipore on January 24th, 2002; there it was registered as Arbitration Execution Case No. 1 of 2002. Subsequently the petitioner moved an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent before this Court. By an order dated September 18th, 2003 passed in such application, this application was transferred from the Court of the District Judge of South 24-Parganas at Alipore to this Court. On transfer it was registered in this Court as Extraordinary Suit No. 11 of 2003. The respondent has filed opposition affirmed on December 6th, 2003. The petitioner has filed reply affirmed on December 17th, 2003.3. A tender dated August 30th, 1995 was floated by the respondent for supply of 15,000/- 5% DMT to cop...
Kapoor and Company Private Limited Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN472
S.P. Talukdar, J. 1. This arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against order dated 29.04.2003 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal in MAA Nos. 400, 407, 412 and 418 of 2000.2. Grievances of the petitioner-M/s. Kapoor & Company Private Limited, may briefly be stated as follows :Petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid four units being unit Nos. 250, 263, 260 and unit No. Basement IV having an area of 77.74 sq. ft, 95.30 sq. ft, 74.59 sq. ft, and 18.537 sq. ft. respectively, all situated at 3, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-700 001. The said units were proposed to be assessed by the respondent/the Kolkata Municipal Corporation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. per month with effect from 3rd quarter 1999-2000 for six years. The Basement Unit No. IV was proposed at a rate of Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. per month. The petitioner filed objection against such proposal. The Hearing Officer-VI finalized the said valuation reducing the rent of Rs...
Nicco Uco Credit Limited Vs. Benelux Capital S.A.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN27
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. 1. This is an application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent made by the defendant. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant inter alia for raising capital to be raised by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. In paragraph 9 of the plaint the plaintiff stated as follows :'9. The plaintiff states that both the said agreements dated 12th September, 2002 and 11th November, 2002 were executed by the plaintiff at its office situated at 2, Hare Street, Kolkata-700 001 within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The said agreements were thereafter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant to its registered office at Deaufort House, Road Town, Tortola, British Island and the said agreements were executed by the defendant at the British Virgin Islands outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court'.2. Earlier in paragraph 1 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that they were carrying on business at all material times ...
Bimal Krishna Bose Vs. Alanga Medical Hall and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN46
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner, Rabindra Nath Roy praying for revision of the order being No. 156 dated 6.7.2002 passed by the ld. Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in T. S. 1109/1989.2. The circumstanced leading to the present revision are that the suit being T. S. 1109/1989 was instituted originally in the name of St. John Ambulance Clinic as plaintiff. On an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CP Code filed by the defendant/ respondent for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff St. John Ambulance Clinic being not a juristic person has no locus standi to institute the suit, the ld. Court below allowed the same vide Order No. 48 dated 10.05.1991 holding that the plaintiff not being a registered partnership firm or a private or public limited or a trust represented by sebait has no right to institute the suit. In appeal being F. A. T. 1951/1991 preferred by the plaintiff, this Court set aside the ...
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Vs. P.K. Commercial Company and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN392
S.P. Talukdar, J. 1. Common questions of fact and law being involved in the three cases between the same parties, those have been heard at a time on consent of both sides.2. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation, as petitioner, filed three applications under Article 227 of the Constitution. Those are directed against order dated 01.03.2000 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MAA 388A/97, MAA 387A/97 and MAA 384A/97 arising out of the order passed by the Hearing Officer-III dated 11.03.1997 in respect of Space No. 4A, 4th Floor, 119, Park Street, Kolkata-700016.3. Grievances of the petitioner/KMC may briefly be stated as follows :Hearing Officer-III after due service of notice and hearing both parties by order dated 11.03.1997 fixed the annual valuation (AV) in respect of the disputed case-property for three different periods of time. Opposite party No. 1, M/s. P.K. Commercial Co. & Ltd., preferred three separate appeals, as referred t...
Amal Kumar Giri and ors. Vs. Nani Gopal Paira and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN631
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioners praying for revision of the order dated 16.12.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Midnapore in Misc. Appeal No.45/95 reversing the order dated 24.3.95 of learned Munsif, Dantan in J. Misc. Case No. 26/1991.2. The circumstances leading to the present revision are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act being registered as J. Misc. Case No. 27/91 for pre-emption of the lands transferred in favour of O.P. No. 1 by pro-O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 by a sale deed executed on 21.9.87 and registered on 2.2.91, on the ground of vicinage, on depositing sale-price along with compensation, as they purchased land of plot Nos. 2315 & 2319 of Khatian Nos. 158 & 483 respectively of Mouza Palasi by a registered deed dated 21.9.89. After a contested hearing the Trial Court allowed the said misc. case holding the petitioners as contiguous raiyats of the disp...
C.E.S.C. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Cal)557,[2005]272ITR513(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the petitioner No. 1, an assessee under IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has challenged a letter dt. 9th Sept., 1996, issued by respondent No. 1 by which the said respondent has asked the petitioner No. 1 to produce relevant books of account in order to substantiate the claim of exemption in support of the return under Section 206 of the Act for the financial year 1992-93.2. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant writ application may be summarized thus :(a) The petitioner No. 1 is an income-tax assessee under the Act and the AO of the petitioner No. 1 who has the jurisdiction to make assessment under the Act is the Dy. CIT, Special Range-II, Calcutta, under the CIT, West Bengal-I.(b) The petitioner No. 1 had been deducting tax under Section 192 of the Act as also other relevant provisions and had been depositing the same under Section 200 of the Act, and also filed annual return in Form No. 24 under Section 20...
Cesc Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2004
Reported in: [2004]140TAXMAN646(Cal)
ORDERBy this writ application, the petitioner No. 1, an assessee under Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has challenged a letter dated 9th September, 1996 issued by respondent No. 1 by which the said respondent has asked the petitioner No. 1 to produce relevant books of account in order to substantiate the claim of exemption in support of the Return under section 206 of the Act for the financial year 1992-93.2. Facts giving rise to filing of the instant writ application may be summarized thus :(a) The petitioner No. 1 is an Income-tax assessee under the Act and the assessing officer of the petitioner No. 1 who has the jurisdiction to make assessment under the Act is the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Special Range-II, Calcutta, under the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-1.(b) The petitioner No. 1 had been deducting tax under section 192 of the Act as also other relevant provisions, and had been depositing the same under section 200 of the Act and al...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aparna Agency Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Cal)355,[2004]267ITR50(Cal)
1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue and the following two questions have been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court arising out of the order of the Tribunal in I. T.A. No. 581 (Cal) of 1992 :'1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the penalty order dated April 17, 1989, for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh imposed under Section 271B, on the ground that the show cause notice served on the assessee was invalid ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding the view that the deficiencies in the show cause notice are not curable by the provisions of Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thereby holding the order of penalty invalid ?'2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid two questions are that for the assessment year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer formed his opinion which is reflected in his order of ass...
Shyamkamal Khawas and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN321
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in the Sessions Case No. 77/1995 (ST 16/96) on 13.09.2001.2. A thumbnail sketch of the prosecution case is that on 31.08.1993, Tuesday, at about 8.30 p.m. accused Anadi, Chutan, Jagannath, Buka & Shaktipada came to the residence of the de facto complainant and informed her parents that they would go to Bokaro by a train at 10.00 p.m. for settlement of dispute amongst their brothers in presence of Lakhan & Shakti. She and her mother on good faith allowed her. father Phunga to go with them and they accompanied those accused persons and her father upto Sunri Dam where on seeing accused Shyamkamal, Rasraj, Shambhu, Trilochan & 2/3 unknown persons, they became frightened. The accused persons asked them not to be worried as they would bring back Phunga within two days. As Phunga did not return till 12.00 hrs. on 2.9.199...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »