Kolkata Court July 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.
Anvil Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(173)ELT122(Cal)
ORDERBhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two writ applications were heard together as those were interlinked to some extent.2. In the first writ application, being WP No. 2573 of 2001, the writ petitioners have prayed for declaration that they are entitled to get 'duty-free clearance' of four consignments by virtue of their Advance License. The case made out by the writ petitioners in the first matter may be summarized thus :(a) The petitioners entered into four contracts for purchase of aluminium ingots from various foreign parties of Singapore. Those were purchased from the warehouses of London Metal Exchange and were of Indian origin. The vessel carrying aluminium ingots arrived at Calcutta Port in November, 2000.(b) The goods were in four consignments and the petitioners filed two Bills of Entries for the two of those consignments on the basis of the non-negotiable copies of Bill of Lading. The Customs Authority, however, did not allow release of the aforesaid consignments under duty-...
Tapan Krishna Das Vs. Hazi Sajjad Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal60,2004(4)CHN511
Amitava Lala, J. 1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore in Misc. Appeal No. 70 of 1999 dated 31st August, 2000 reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Midnapore in J. Misc. Case No. 32 of 1992 dated 21st May, 1999.2. The opposite party filed the pre-emption case against the petitioner herein in respect of .05 Decimals of land in plot No. 308 under Khatian No. 540 of Mouza-Inda, which was sold by the opposite party No. 2 in favour of the appellant. The opposite party No. 1 is owner of plot No. 310 measuring 21 decimals which is exclusively got by a strength of partition amongst the co-sharers dated 6th June, 1990 and the said plot No. 310 is adjacent to the suit land.3. The opposite party No. 1 contended that the property was not sold or transferred by the opposite party No. 2 by a sale d...
Vinayak Oil and Fats Private Ltd. Vs. Andre (Cayman Islands) Trading C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)ARBLR551(Cal),(2004)3CALLT380(HC),2005(2)CHN29,[2005]64SCL277(Cal)
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. Can a foreign award be made a subject matter of a winding up petition under the present laws of the land?2. One says It is while other says it is not. But none of them could cite a precedent on the point in issue or nearer to it except a single bench decision of Delhi High Court.3. Let me now try to resolve the controversy with my understanding of law as discussed hereinafter:4. Facts of the case:The petitioning creditor entered into an agreement with the company for sale of 3000MT of oil. Accordingly the oil was transmitted through ship for the purpose of delivery at Calcutta. The company was to open a Letter of Credit. The company failed to do so. When the goods arrived the company could not get those released by opening Letter of Credit thereby petitioner suffered loss and damages. Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and ultimately obtained an award from London. On the other hand the company filed a suit in the Court involving the petitioner.4.1. The petiti...
Lalit Mohan Thapar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Cal)311,[2005]272ITR563(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. Facts : Points for determination : Submission of the respective counsel :2. A small but interesting question has been raised before us by Mr. Khaitan and Mr. Chowdhury appearing in support of the application and opposing the application, respectively. This question has two limbs, which we are called upon to answer.3. The first limb is with regard to Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. Under the said rule, the unquoted shares are valued in the manner provided therein which in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) , was held to be mandatory and is to be followed in every case where unquoted equity shares of a company are to be valued. Rule 1D provides for an exception in a phrase '(other than investment company or a managing agency company)'. The said exception appears to be quoted in the decision in Bharat Hari Singhania : [1994]207ITR1(SC) as is quoted in the order dated September 4, 2001, passed in AWT No. 3730 of 1993 (Lalit Mohan Thapar v. C...
Krishna Pada Mahato Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN198
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.96 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1995 (Sessions Case No. 35A of 1992) thereby convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC) and sentencing the appellant to suffer detention for five years in lieu of imprisonment with further direction that the appellant being juvenile delinquent be kept in safe custody in Purulia Jail for five years. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the judgment and order of conviction the appellant who was a juvenile at the relevant time of incident has preferred the instant appeal.2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of complaint filed by the victim Charubala Mahato in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter called the CJM), Purulia praying for sending the complaint to Officer-in-Charge, Purulia (M) P.S. for investigation under Section ...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Pradip Kumar Agasti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-2004
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN25
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.Facts:1. The respondent's land was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1942. At that point of time, 'sal' trees (timber) were standing on the land. Admittedly the land was utilized for the Military on which buildings were constructed and roads were developed. The land was utilized for the purpose of Panagarh Air Field. Subsequently, the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 was enacted for the purpose of governing the cases requisitioned under the Defence of India Act as well as for fresh requisition. Admittedly, the respondents were getting the recurring compensation payable under Section 8(2) of the 1952 Act. Ultimately, the land was sought to be acquired in 1975 under the 1952 Act. Pursuant to such acquisition, compensation became payable under Section 8(3) of the 1952 Act.1.1. Since the parties could not agree to the compensation payable an Arbitrator was appointed in terms of Section 8(1) of the 1952 Act. Before the Arbitrator ce...
Howrah Motor Company Limited and ors. Vs. Samir Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN291
Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. This instant application is for quashing of the proceeding being C/1853/2000 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta.2. A complaint under Section 14(2A) read with Section 14A(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was lodged against the petitioners by the Inspector of Employees' Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was alleged that the petitioners being employers failed to comply with certain requirements in respect of the said establishment:- (a) to transfer monthly Provident Fund contributions amounting to Rs. 1,56,994/- (Employee's Share) and Rs. 1,08,547/- (Employer's Share) and Rs. 17,19,794/- to the Board of Trustees for the months of November, 1998 to January, 1999 in contravention of the relevant conditions and exemption read with Government of India Notification issued under subsection (3) ofSection 17 of the said Act and (b) to pay Inspection charges amounting ...
Manjushree Haldar Vs. Salil Kumar Haldar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN610
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Nobody appears in spite of service of notice. The affidavit-of-service must be filed in course of this day by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It also appears from record that one learned Advocate entered appearance on behalf of the opposite party. As there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite party today at the time of hearing of this application, I have heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.2. The opposite party/husband filed a suit for divorce being Matrimonial Suit No. 8 of 1998 against the present petitioner and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 29th July, 1998. The petitioner thereafter on 28th January, 1999 filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree alongwith a separate application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. The learned Court below took up the said petition for condonation of delay and petition for setting aside ex parte decree for disposal and on examination ...
Syed Hazi Wasi Ahmed Vs. Board of Wakfs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT330(HC),2004(4)CHN617
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Both the CO. Nos. 1984 of 2003 and 2416 of 2003 are taken up together upon the submissions of the participating parties as common question of fact and law is involved in both the applications and hence, both the applications shall be disposed of by a common order.2. One Syed Hazi Wasi Ahmed is the petitioner in CO. No. 1984 of 2003 and the Union of India represented by the G.O.C., Eastern Command, Kolkata is the petitioner of CO. No. 2416 of 2003 and both the applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against an order dated 30th June, 2003 passed by the Wakf Tribunal in connection with Appeal No. 25 of 2002 impleading the Board of Wakfs, West Bengal and the persons appointed as Mutawalli in respect of the property in dispute.3. The undisputed fact as revealed from the averments of the petitioner of both the applications and also from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the contesting opposite parties of both the applications an...
Sri Kartick Chandra Mondal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-22-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal16,(2004)3CALLT563(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a Suit for declaration of Title, confirmation of possession and injunction. In the plaint the plaintiff made out the case which is inter alia as follows :2. Plot Nos. 984/1995 and 985 appertaining R.S. Khatian No. 5656 of Mouza Punra. The rental was Rs. 540. The land belonged to the plaintiffs predecessor Panchanan Mondal. The share of the plaintiff in the above Jama is 14 annas, 8 gandas and the Jama of the proforma Defendant No. 2 is 1 anna, 12 gandas. North to the above Plot is river Ichhamati. Due to gradual and imperceptible recession of river the disputed two acres as described in the (Ka) Schedule of the plaint took place gradually. According to the plaintiff this recession took place long before the introduction of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Similarly acceretion of 2.56 acres of Plot No. 15365 appertaining to Khatian No. 4532, referred to in the (kha) Schedule of the plaint took place in which the plaintiffs have 66...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »