Kolkata Court June 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.
Jayshree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2004
Reported in: [2005]143TAXMAN143(Cal)
D.K. Seth J.The questions : 2. Reference was sought to be made on the following three questions:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the business carried out in the income Allahabad unit did not constitute a part and parcel of a single business carried out by the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal had no material to hold that there was no inter- connection, inter-lacing and inter-dependence between the various units of the assessee including the Allahabad unit and accordingly its decision was perverse ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the assessing officer to disallow the sum of Rs. 18,40,250?'Respondent's objection3. In the statement of case the Tribunal had referred only the third question. Relying on this Mr. Shome wanted to contend that the entire argument of Dr...
Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited and ors. Vs. J ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN255
ORDER1. This is an appeal from an order refusing leave to the appellant defendants to amend their written statement. The order is dated the 28th of July, 1998. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that the respondent Peerless and its high officers had acted, conspired and colluded with the defendant Nos. 8, 9 and 10, who were the agents of Peerless. By reason of such wrongful actions the plaintiffs had lost large sums of money. The principal claim in the plaint is forRs. 25 lac.2. The suit was filed in 1993. The written statement was first delivered in 1994. In 1998 the amendment application was taken out. The substance of the application is that a sum ofRs. 5 lac was lent and advanced by Peerless to the first plaintiff in or about the year 1977. It is further alleged that interest accrued thereon and part payments were made from time to time by the debtor right from July, 1978 until 1996.3. On examination of the records we find that none of the acknowledgements is accompanied...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Tea Ltd. and Apeejay Education Ass ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT471(HC),(2005)195CTR(Cal)26,[2005]272ITR42(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. In each of these two appeals the assessments for the respective two previous years were challenged before the Tribunal. But in respect of both the years involved in each of the two appeals the question involved was identical. Therefore, in both these cases the two appeals filed before the Tribunal by the respective assessees for the relevant two years were disposed of by one consolidated order each. Against the respective consolidated order, one appeal each has since been preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before this High Court.2. Now the question arises whether against one consolidated order disposing of several appeals by the learned Tribunal one appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be maintained ?Prevailing practice followed in Calcutta High Court :3. Before introduction of Section 260A reference used to be preferred before the High Court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar ...
Superintendent of Central Excise and ors. Vs. Texmaco Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN167,2004(176)ELT93(Cal)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the delay has been explained sufficiently. We, therefore, condone the delay. Let the appeal be registered.On the question of condonation of delay both the learned counsel for the parties had addressed the Court on the merits of the appeal, By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list for hearing. We have heard the matter on the merit as well.Facts :2. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent requiring levy of excise duty, as per classification under Heading 8607 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, on the ground that the assessee was not entitled to obtain the benefit of two exemptions under Notification No. 217/86-CE dated 2nd November, 1986 which were mutually exclusive. This was challenged in a writ petition being C.O. No. 14170 (W) of 1991. The learned Single Judge by a decision dated 2nd December, 1991 was pleased to quash this notification on the ground that even ...
Manorama Chakraborty and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN587
Prabir Kumar Samanta and Soumitra Sen, JJ.1. In this Misc. Appeal which arises out of the judgment and award dated 7.9.2000 made in M.A.C. Case No. 484 of 1996, the short question as to the correctness of the computation of compensation as awarded by the said Tribunal is involved.2. The Claims Tribunal has come to the finding that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 3,500/- per month at the relevant point of time and the said victim was aged 39 years at the time of the accident. Even upon such finding the Claims Tribunal instead of deducting l/3rd of the amount of the said monthly income of the deceased has deducted Rs. 2,500/- from the same on account of his personal expenses and towards the costs of management of his business. The Claims Tribunal in spite of the finding that the victim was aged 39 years on the death of the accident has applied multiplier of 11 instead of 16 in breach of the guidelines as provided in Schedule I to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter calle...
Premlata Nahata and anr. Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: IV(2004)BC602
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This is the defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC'). His case is that the plaint is liable to be rejected, because it is apparent from the statements in it that the plaintiff's suit is barred by law; the law that bars the suit is multifariousness.2. The case made out in the plaint is this. The defendant is a share broker. Sri Mahendra Kumar Nahata is the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff Sri Nahata and the defendant were known to each other. The plaintiffs and the defendant had entered into several different transactions before the transactions leading to the suit took place. In early 2000 the defendant approached Sri Nahata for arranging a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the first plaintiff. Accordingly, a cheque dated April 7th, 2000 for Rs. 5,00,000/- was given to the defendant by way of loan, the terms and conditions where of were decided by oral agreement ...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Gloster Jute Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR1004],(2004)IIILLJ1005Cal
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. In spite of service of notice, nobody appears to contest this application on behalf of the opposite party company. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner-Employees' State ; Insurance Corporation, which shall be referred to hereinafter as Corporation, for the sake of brevity.2. The Corporation has raised a question j of law through this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the propriety of the order, dated September 9, 1997, passed by the learned Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, Calcutta in Case No. 126 of 1997, so far that order1 contained a direction for refund of the amount which was earlier realised by the Corporation through an execution proceeding against the defaulting opposite party-company.3. Appearing for the petitioner, Sri Moitra, contends that there was a long background behind the present proceeding which arose out of an application filed by the opposite part)/-company under Section 75 of the Act to ca...
Magma Leasing Limited Vs. Ajoy Kumar Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT341(HC),2005(4)CHN48
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This appeal is from an order dated 19.12.2001 passed by a learned Judge on an Execution Application filed by the appellant for appointment of a Receiver in respect of premises No. 40, Gariahat Road (South), Calcutta and 11 Girish Ghosh Road, Calcutta. A further direction was prayed for taking possession of the premises and to make an inventory of all immoveable and assets lying thereat and with a further direction on the Receiver to sell the said premises either by public auction or by private treaty and out of the sale proceeds the Receiver was also to be directed to pay the sum to the decree-holder in protanto satisfaction of the decree after meeting the costs, charges and expenses.2. The learned Judge by the order under appeal refused to pass any order on the said application (G.A. 3227 of 2001) being Execution Application No. 1 of 1998, inter alia, on the ground that in respect of the property in question namely 40, Gariahat Road (South), Calcutta (hereinafter re...
Hrishikesh Maity and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT89(HC)
Indira Banerjee, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged an order being Memo No. 115/1 (5) LC dated 14th May, 2003 of the Respondent Director of School Education, West Bengal rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for regularisation of their services by approval of their appointments against vacant sanctioned post in Keuchia Nilkantha Vidyaniketan, which is hereinafter referred to as the school, at Keuchia in Purba Midnapore.2. The school was recognised as a Four-class Junior High School with effect from 28th April, 1965 with Classes from V to VIII. There was a demand from guardians and students for upgradation of the school by addition of Classes IX and X. In view of such demand Classes IX and X were started with effect from 1975.3. The school authorities applied for recognition of Classes IX and X with the requisite fee in 1975. No action was, however, taken on the said application. In the aforesaid circumstances, proceedings were initiated in this Court. Pursuan...
Sankar Nath Mullick and anr. Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Sona Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT535(HC),2004(4)CHN435
D.K. Seth, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a Judgment and decree dated 16th of September, 2003 passed by the learned single Judge in C.S. No. 406 of 2001, upon an application under Chapter XIII of the Original Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta relating to originating summons.1.1. The plaintiffs/respondents sought for the determination of the following questions and reliefs:'a. Whether the restriction imposed by the said Deed of Ekrarnama dated 25th May, 1820 and the Post-Script thereto dated 27th February, 1822 debarring the descendants of the said Sm. Chitra Dassi not belonging to the same Gotra (Clan) as that of the settlor from becoming shebaits of the said deity Sri Sri Iswar Radha Gobinda Jew is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs, being contrary to Hindu Law of Succession and or the general principles of the law of the land applicable thereto?b. Whether or not the plaintiffs as the only heiresses and legal representatives of the said Baladeb Chandra Mullick hav...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »