Kolkata Court July 2004 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.F.T. Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Cal)637,[2004]270ITR167(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. In this case the learned Tribunal had allowed deduction of the cess paid on green leaf in the process of growing and manufacturing tea since assessed to income-tax. According to learned counsel, 60 per cent. of the cess so paid is eligible for deduction since 60 per cent. of the income computed under Rule 8 is held to be agricultural income. According to him, the cess is payable under Section 8(2)(e) of the Assam Agricultural Income-taxAct, 1939. Therefore, it can be deducted only to the proportion of the agricultural income. He relies on a decision in Jorehaut Group Ltd. v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer [1997] 226 ITR 622 (Gau), wherein the cess paid was allowed to be deducted against 60 per cent. of the agricultural income before apportionment under Rule 8. But we find from the said decision that the said decision does not support the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that only 60 per cent. of the cess is payable. In the said decision in Jorehau...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapati Exports Ltd. and ors. Vs. S. Pervez, Enforcement Officer and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT244(HC),2004(4)CHN293,[2005]128CompCas748(Cal),2006CriLJ2352,[2006(3)JCR474(Cal)],[2005]62SCL529(Cal)
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. Present reference to this Bench has been made by an order dated 15.10.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. As similar point of law is involved in all the revisional applications, those are taken up analogously for disposal. Proceedings in the Court below were initiated on different allegations. In the present reference, we deal with the facts relating to CRR No. 230 of 1996.2. Briefly stated facts leading to the present reference and the questions framed by the learned Judge are as follows :The accused petitioner No.1 company during the year 1988-89 effected shipment of goods valued at Rs. 57,87,256.79 declared under the GRI forms and it transpired from the records that the accused No. 1 refrained from doing anything or taking any action which had the effect of securing the export proceeds to the tune of Rs.57,87,256.79, within six months from the date of shipment or within the time extended by the Reserve Bank of India as required under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhas Chandra De and ors. Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT60(HC),[2005(106)FLR757],(2005)IILLJ549Cal
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. Four persons have joined together in this writ petition. Their common grievance is that on their opting for voluntary retirement the pension benefits to which they became entitled in terms of the scheme were not given to them.2. The petitioners were in the employment of the respondent Bank (United Bank of India). In 1995 the bank introduced United Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. Regulation 29 provided for pension on voluntary retirement. Sub-regulation 5 of Regulation 29 provide that the qualifying service of an employee seeking voluntary retirement under the regulations would be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service should not in any case exceed 33 years, and it also must not go beyond such employee's date of superannuation.3. On December 23rd 2000 the bank notified a voluntary retirement scheme. In paragraph 6(ii) of such scheme it was mentioned that an employee seeki...
Tag this Judgment!Mrinal Chakraborty Vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN239
Narayan Chandra Sil, J.1. The Court : This is to consider an application filed by Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal and his wife Smt. Madhuri Agarwal.2. The petitioners' case in brief is that one Mrinal Chakraborty by suppressing facts and without complying with the mandatory provisions of Indian Succession Act and the Original Side Rules of this Court relating to testamentary matters obtained probate on 18th December, 1996 in respect of an alleged Will dated 15th September, 1995, alleged to have been executed by one Sita Chakraborty, since deceased. It is claimed by the petitioners that prior to her death Sita Chakraborty made and published her last Will and Testament dated 10th October, 1995 in English Language at Lucknow whereby she appointed Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal, the petitioner No. 1, the sole Executor of the Will bequeathing all her assets to Smt. Madhuri Agarwal, the petitioner No. 2. After the death of Sita Chakraborty an application for grant of probate of the said Will dated 10th Oct...
Tag this Judgment!Stephen Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Owners and Parties Interested in th ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)ARBLR574(Cal),(2004)3CALLT211(HC)
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiff purchased 20,000 MT of Sugar on high seas sale contract on the basis of diverse bills of lading issued by Cargill International S.A. for and on behalf of Master of the vessel M.V. 'Wise King'. When the ship arrived at sandheads on 23rd November,1999 at Kolkata on a survey it transpired that the goods had been damaged to the extent of 926.05 MT valued at Rs. 1,38,90,750.00. There had been short delivery to the extent of 300 MT valued at Rs.45.00 lacs. The plaintiff therefore filed the above suit claiming a decree for Rs. 1,83,90,750.00 for loss and damage as against the vessel M.V. 'Wise King' and applied for arrest. The vessel was initially arrested. M/s. Wise King Meritime Limited and Unwise Company INC claiming to be the owner and disponent owner of the vessel M.V. Wise King applied for release of the vessel and the vessel was released on a guarantee being furnished for the claim of the plaintiff. Such guarantee was furnished in favour of The Registr...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN671
Amit Talukdar and Pranab Kumar Deb, JJ.1. Pursuant to an assignment made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice this matter has been posted for hearing before us.2. Since Girish Chandra Gupta, J. by His Lordship's Order dated 27.2.2004 could not agree with the ratio of the decision passed by D. K. Seth, J. in Bhubaneshwar Das v. Union of India and Ors. in CO. No. 3628(W) of 1993 dated 7.02.2002. His Lordship referred the matter before a Division Bench by way of formulating the following, question :'Can a delinquent be dismissed from service when he has been charged under section 11 of the CRPF of 1949 ?'3. It is thereupon we have been asked to answer the said question formulated by our Esteemed Learned Brother.4. The present reference arises out of a writ application which matured for hearing before our Esteemed Learned Brother, Girish Chandra Gupta, J. on behalf of one Sitaram Mishra, Head Constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F), who has been dismissed by the Respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Narayan Pradhan Vs. District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN146
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the petitioner, an applicant for grant of M.R. Dealership for the Mirick area, in the District of Darjeeling has challenged memo dated 18th June, 2003 being Annexure 'P-7' by which the concerned State respondent has appointed the private respondent No. 7 as the Dealer.2. Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has taken a preliminary objection as to the right of the writ petitioner to challenge the appointment of his client on the ground that the writ petitioner having no requisite qualification for the said dealership is not entitled to challenge the appointment.3. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the aforesaid preliminary objection and has contended that it would appear from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondent that while appointing the private respondent No. 7, the relevant Control Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Mousumi Maji Nee Pal Vs. Timir Kumar Maji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT484(HC),II(2005)DMC233
Mahemmed Habeeb Shams Ansari, J.1. Instant appeal is filed by the wife aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated December 21, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Arambagh, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No. 1 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the suit field by the respondent-husband for declaring the marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was decreed on contest and the marriage between the parties was thereby declared a nullity.2. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the appellant and the respondent, hereinafter, as the 'wife' and the 'husband' respectively.3. The suit was filed by the husband for declaration that the marriage between the appellant herein and the respondent is null and void. The marriage between the parties was registered under the Special Marriage Act on March 30, 1992. The relief for nullity of marriage is founded on three grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the husband belongs to 'Mahisya' community whereas the wife belongs...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Samar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN390
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore by passing Order No. 5 dated 1.4.2000 in SC 22(3) of 2000.2. The fact, that led to the said reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is that a writ petition in the nature habeas corpus bearing No. CO15487W of 1993 was filed before this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Lakkhi Chand Paswan and Smt. Lalti Debi wherein they alleged that Bhikari Paswan, the husband of the petitioner No. 2 was illegally detained by the Police Authority and as such by filing the writ petition they prayed for production of said Bhikari Paswan before the Magistrate. The Division Bench, consisting of the then Chief Justice and another learned Judge, heard the said writ application extensively and in the process report was called for from the Central Bureau of Investigation. Evidence of the parties was also taken before the said Writ Court and ultimately whi...
Tag this Judgment!Srimanta Kumar Giri Vs. Debendra Nath Prodhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN484
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application is at the instance of defendants No. 2 & 7 in a suit for partition by separation of share and is directed against order No. 57 dated March 27, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Contai, in Title Suit No. 126 of 2000 thereby rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for passing a second preliminary decree after modifying the earlier one.2. The opposite party No. 1 filed the aforesaid suit for separation of ka-1 schedule property from ka schedule property on the allegation that the parties were co-sharers and that he was entitled to get a specific portion, namely, ka-1 schedule property. The aforesaid suit was contested by the present petitioners thereby resisting the claim of the opposite party No. 1 and their contention was that the suit property was a joint property and as such the plaintiff could not claim any specific portion as full owner thereof and pray for separation of that portion....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »