Kolkata Court April 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.
State Vs. Samar Kumar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ531Cal
Altamas Kabir and Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya, JJ.1. This writ application is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and the Director of Personnel Ex-Officio Chief Engineer, Irrigation & Waterways Directorate, Government of West Bengal, in respect of the order dated November 23, 2000 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal on November 23, 2000 in O.A. No. 339 of 2000.2. The aforesaid original application had been filed by Sri Samar Kumar Chowdhury questioning the authority of the State and its authorities in continuing with the vigilance enquiry against him despite the fact that he had applied for voluntary retirement on November 13, 1998, giving three clear months notice of his intention to do so. It also appears that while the applicant before the learned Tribunal was to retire on February 28, 1999, he sent a reminder on February 10, 1999, regarding his decision to retire voluntarily from service.3. The learned Tribunal by its judgment and order dated August 25, 2000 was of...
Farichem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(Cal)377,[2005]273ITR133(Cal)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee. The following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the ITAT') for adjudication by this court :'1. Whether, there was any evidence and/or materials on record to hold that the assessee-company could not be treated as an industrial company when Messrs. Martin and Harris (P.) Ltd., has been subjected to concessional rate of tax on the ground that M/s. Martin and Harris (P.) Ltd. is an industrial company because it had manufactured pharmaceutical products for the assessee-company ?2. Whether, the conclusions and findings of the Tribunal that Messrs. Martin and Harris (P.) Ltd. can rightly claim that it is an industrial company because it is directly engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for the assessee-company are based on any materials and are perverse and vitiated by reason of inadmissible or irrelevant or partly relevan...
Tsai Tea Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)196CTR(Cal)148,[2005]273ITR119(Cal)
ORDERAppeal against order giving effect to CIT(A) s orderAggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), on 7-3-1988, dismissed the assessee s appeal. No further appeal was filed by the assessee against that order. By order dt. 8-12-1989, the AO gave effect to the order of the CIT(A), dated 7-3-1988. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee once against filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was allowed by the CIT(A). The revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal raising contention regarding competency of this appeal. The Tribunal allowed the revenue s appeal. Held: The order of CIT(A), dt. 7-3-1988 had been allowed to attain finality as no appeal had been preferred against the same by the assessee, an appeal once again on the very same ground to the CIT(A) was not competent.Income Tax Act, 1961 s.246(1)(c)Income Tax Act, 1961 M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. Pursuant to the direction of the court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax...
Ayenessa Bibi Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN323
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This revisional application has been filed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly Sadar passed in G.R. Case No. 1348 of 1991. The case of the petitioner is that she is the legally married wife of one Dilwar Hossain. O.P. No. 3 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 is her married sister-in-law. The said O.P. No. 2, although is married, she is not living with her husband and stayed at her father's place and occupies a room. After the marriage of the O.P. No. 3, both the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 started torturing the petitioner and her husband in order to compel them to vacate the room. On 16.03.91, O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 assaulted the petitioner and her husband. At that time the petitioner was pregnant. As a result of the assault, she became sick and when she was taken to the doctor she was informed that her child already died. On 26.06.91, the O.P. No. 2 by entering into the room of the petitioner dragged he...
Bishnu Singh Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN397
Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 402 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing the orders dated 3.3.03 and 19.9.03 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Sessions Case No. 85/01 thereby framing charge under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act against the petitioner and rejecting his application under Section 231(2) of the Code for deferring cross-examination of P.W. 3 till examination of four other witnesses.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that against the petitioner charge-sheet under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) was filed after completing investigation and on 10.10.01 learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as ACMM) after taking cognizance of offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, transferred the case to ...
Eqbal Ahmed and Co. Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2005)1SOT202(Kol.)
In this appeal, the assessee's only grievance is against the order of the learned CIT (A) in upholding the assessment order where the partner's salary has been disallowed although the amended deed of partnership was produced before him at the time of rectification under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer although accepted the amended deed of partnership but did not allow the partners' salary.This is a case where the partnership has been constituted right from the beginning i.e., 31-3-1993 between two partners having 50% share of each and both the partners were working partners. According to clause 13 of the deed of partnership, it has been stated that both the partners shall participate in the management and conducting of the business and if so decided, both the partners shall be entitled to draw monthly salary at the rate as will mutually be settled from time to time subject to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. But the assessing officer disallowed the remune...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prafulla Kumar Roychowdhury and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT467(HC),2004(3)CHN399
D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 13th May, 2003 passed in C. S. No. 900 of 1986 by the learned Single Judge decreeing the suit for recovery of possession. One Smt. Binapani Roy Chowdhury, the original plaintiff, executed a registered Deed of Lease dated 17th of September, 1956 in respect of the land to the defendant/appellant for a period of 25 years effective from 15th August, 1956 (expiring on 14th August, 1981) with an option for renewal for a period of 5 years. In the schedule of the deed, the property was described as vacant land. Under the terms of the lease, the defendant/appellant erected structure on the land. On the expiry of 25 years, the defendant/appellant expressed its desire to exercise option for renewal of the lease for a term of 5 years informing the plaintiff/respondent that a deed for renewal of the lease would be executed. Ultimately, no deed of renewal of lease was executed. Since July 1982, the defendant/appellant stopped pa...
Chandra Basu Vs. Sanjukta Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN491
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 31st May, 2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge at Alipore in C. R. No. 427 of 2001 affirming the order being No. 13, dated 15th May, 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 6th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 138 of 2000.2. The defendant is the petitioner before this Court in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.3. The facts leading to the filing of this revisional application is set out hereunder :(a) The opposite parties herein as plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant petitioner herein. The said suit which was filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 6th Court at Alipore was registered as Title Suit No. 138 of 2000.(b) In the said suit the plaintiffs opposite parties were seeking to enforce the contract, for assignment of the...
Lalit Kumar Marodia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-2004
Reported in: [2005]123CompCas716(Cal),(2005)4CompLJ369(Cal),[2005]59SCL474(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The brief facts in this matter are as follows : The petitioner is a stockbroker and as such is registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) and is also a member of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (hereinafter in short as 'the CSE'). He has been asked to pay registration fees sought to be levied by respondent No. 2 on the basis of the provisions of Regulation 10 read with Schedule III of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Regulations'). In this application, the petitioner has challenged this demand for payment of registration fees total of each trade, whether of purchase or sale carried by a stockbroker during the year.2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner is that, the SEBI as well as the CSE upon giving wrong interpretation and/or meaning of the words 'annual turnover' have been rea...
Kolkata Municipal Corporation Vs. Sarveshwar Construction Pvt. Ltd. an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN580
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th June, 2003 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal in MAA No. 1691 of 2001.2. Grievances of the petitioner/Kolkata Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the KMC' may briefly be stated as follows :(a) Opposite party No. 1 is an assessee under the petitioner authority in respect of the premises No. 29A, Ballygunge Park Road, (Ward No. 65), Kolkata-700 019.(b) Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Revenue HQ) by order dated 15.11.1999 fixed the annual valuation of the said premises at Rs. 4,28,580/- with effect from 1/1999-2000. Opposite party No. 1 preferred an appeal against the said order, being MAA No. 1691 of 2001. In the Memorandum of Appeal the same was described as 29A, Ballygunge Place though in the municipal records, it was rightly recorded as 29A, Ballygunge Park. The Municipal Assessment Tribunal by order dated 25th June, 2003 fixed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »