Kolkata Court August 2004 Judgments
Commr. of Cus. (Port) Vs. Settlement Commission, Cus. and C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(101)ECC87,2005(179)ELT386(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Both the aforementioned writ petitions are taken up together for hearing, as the issues involved in both the matters are identically same. By the first mentioned writ petition, the petitioner wants to un-settle the statutory settlement made by the learned Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi by its final order dated 8th May, 2003, whereas, by the second writ petition, the petitioners want implementation of the same order and direction of the Settlement Commission.2. Briefly stated fact is as follows :The respondent No. 2 had imported duty free Non-alloy Steel Billets and Non-alloy Steel Wire Rods, against advance licence under the DEPB scheme under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus., dated 19th April, 2002. The said imported goods landed at the customs check-post and the Bills of Entries were filed showing 'nil duty' liability. Upon investigation it was found that the said goods were illegally disposed of instead of using the same as input...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Paper Mill Machinery Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Bank of Indi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal21,II(2005)BC414
ORDERPranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 16th July 2003 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT'). By the said order, learned Chairperson of the DRAT was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') on March 7, 2003.2. It was alleged on behalf of the respondent bank before the DRAT that the learned Presiding Officer of DRT passed the aforesaid order on 7th March 2003 recording entire claim of the respondent bank as settled at Rs. 58.51 lakhs with interest in terms of the provisions of OTS-2003 (OneTime Settlement Scheme, 2003) ignoring the objections raised on behalf of the respondent bank against recording of the said settlement.3. The question agitated before the DRAT is whether the decree/certificate issued by the DRT-II was passed on compromise/ settlement or otherwise. It has been specifically submitted on behalf of th...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Paper Mills Machinery Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State Bank of Ind ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT234(HC),2005(1)CHN264
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 16th July, 2003 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT'). By the said order, learned Chairperson of the DRAT was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') on March 7, 2003.2. It was alleged on behalf of the respondent bank before the DRAT that the learned Presiding Officer of DRT passed the aforesaid order on 7th March, 2003 recording entire claim of the respondent bank as settled at Rs. 58.51 lakhs with interest in terms of the provisions of OTS-2003 (One-time Settlement Scheme, 2003) ignoring the objections raised on behalf of the respondent Bank against recording of the said settlement.3. The question agitated before the DRAT is whether the decree/certificate issued by the DRT-II was passed on compromise/settlement or otherwise. It has been specifically submitted on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jayanti Mondal Vs. Sri Tushar Kanti Mondal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT137(HC),I(2005)DMC869
Mahammed Habeeb Shams Ansari, J.1. Wife is the appellant before us. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 23, 1992 passed by the learned additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore, 24- Parganas (S), thereby decreeing the suit filed by the husband and dissolving the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce.2. It must be stated here that the suit filed by the husband was under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was founded on the ground that the parties to the suit were married on May 8, 1979. There is no issue of the marriage. Respondent-wife left the matrimonial home on October 23, 1979 whereupon the husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Suit No. 587 of 1980 which subsequently was renumbered as 64 of 1981 and a decree was passed on May 30, 1983 by the learned Second Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore granting restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband. It is furth...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjib Bhattacharya Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN404
Soumitra Sen, J.1. The petitioner is a Registered Pharmacist. Such, registration was obtained on October 30,1977 from the West Bengal Pharmacists Council.2. The petitioner runs a medical store to sell or distribute retail drugs other than those specified in Schedule 'C' and 'C-l' of the Drug Rules, 1945. The petitioner in this writ-petition has alleged high handed action on the part of the respondent authorities in particular respondent No. 7 being one Mr. Subhas Chandra Bera, Senior Inspector of Drugs under the Directorate of Drugs Control, District Drug Control Office, Nadia. It is the petitioner's case that he has been carrying on with his business without any problems right from inception. Another rival shop after having opened in the locality lodged a complaint against him in May, 2002 before the concerned Police Station. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said Drug Inspector has been visiting his shop room from time to time and has been demanding money. The Asso...
Tag this Judgment!Dipankar Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN380
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. The petitioner Mr. Dutta appearing in person submitted that the licence of the petitioner was seized by the police authorities although the petitioner agreed to face the trial, even then the concerned police officer being the respondent No. 6 insisted him to sign a compound slip admitting the guilt. According to Mr. Dutta, he is agreeable to face the trial. In that case it is the duty of the concerned police officer to hand over the seizure list only and further he submitted that the police officer hasn't any right to seize the licence until and unless he had reason to believe that offender may abscond and then and then only has a right to seize the licence after recording the reasons. According to him, he duly disclosed his identity to the respondent No. 6 and further explained the position of law after disclosing his identity, even then he refused to pay any heed to the petitioner and seized licence. He further contended that such action on the part of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commission ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Cal)161,[2005]273ITR16(Cal)
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. All the mandamus appeals were heard analogously as the facts and law involved in those appeals are the same and almost identical. Those three mandamus appeals arose out of the writ applications bearing No. C. O. 4959(W) of 1989, CO. 4960(W) of 1989 and C.O. 4961 (W) of 1989. By a single judgment dated August 8, 2002 (see : [2002]258ITR160(Cal) ), the learned single judge of this court, disposed of those three writ petitions against the appellants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned single judge, the present appeals have been preferred by the appellant.2. The writ applications were instituted by the appellant challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of reopening the assessment of the company for the years 1981-82, 1980-81 and for the assessment year 1973-74. By issuing the said notice, the Income-tax Officer proposed to reopen the assessment of the appellant-company for those th...
Tag this Judgment!G.K.W. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Cal)98,[2005]273ITR380(Cal)
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal in respect of its assessment for the assessment year 1997-98.2. The assessee carried on business of manufacture and sale of alloy, free cuttings and special sheets, black and bright bars, electrical stampings, laminations, strip wound cores, bolts and nuts, rivets and spikes for special purpose machinery, etc. The assessee also exports the goods manufactured by it.3. In respect of exports made by the assessee, it is granted benefit by way of duty free imports. Prior to the previous year ending March 31, 1997, the assessee qualified for the said benefits by way of duty free imports. As and when it accrued to the assessee, the same was shown in its accounts. Based on the quantum of exports made during the previous year ending on March 31, 1997, the assessee, in its accounts for the said previous year, passed a book entry debiting e...
Tag this Judgment!Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. fortune Express anr. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN204
Ajoy Nath Ray, A.C.J.1. The parties have agreed before us that the appeal should be disposed of on the applicant's petition, since almost all the papers necessary are to be found there. We have heard the stay application along with the appeal and we dispose of both together.2. It is an appeal from a judgment dated the lst of July, 2002 whereby the first1 Court refused to allow the application of the appellant/defendants, who had applied under Order 7 Rule 11 for summary rejection of the plaint in the admiralty suit. In the petition, there is a statement that the suit, even if not dismissed; should be stayed. However, the prayer for stay is not made in terms in the prayer! portion in the Court below. In our opinion, the order for stay being a lesser order than and order for outright dismissal, the appellant would be entitled to pray for either before us. The plaint proceeds on six separate bills of lading. We caused the plaint to be produced before us and we found, to our extreme dissat...
Tag this Judgment!Howrah Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Baidyananda Mahato and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN382
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. The petitioner had submitted a plan for sanction for the purpose of construction of six storeyed building to the Howrah Municipal Corporation on 25th May, 1984. On 8th June, 1984, a resolution was taken by the Building Committee that the sanction be recommended on payment of sanction fee of Rs. 4,500/- subject to removal of certain objections. This was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 16th August, 1984 addressed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation. It is alleged by Mr. Banerjee that the defects were removed on 22nd August, 1987. On perusal of the notesheet, it appears that after this recommendation was made for removal of the defects on 8th June, 1984 the next note is for calculation of the sanction fee at the present rate endorsed on 29th July, 1987. Accordingly the enhanced sanction fee calculated and forwarded for further order to the Commissioner on 3rd August, 1987. The Commissioner enquired whether the condition for sanction has been fulfill...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »