Kolkata Court September 2004 Judgments
Pradip Bhattacharjee Vs. Hindusthan Vegetable Oils Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN506,[2005(106)FLR476],(2005)IILLJ503Cal
1. While taking up the application for injunction filed on behalf of the appellants, the appeal itself was taken up for consideration and the parties were heard extensively on the questions raised in the appeal.2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 27th July, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge on an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, filed on behalf of the workmen in the writ application filed on behalf of the respondents herein, being W. P. No. 29220(W) of 1997, challenging an award passed by the learned Judge, Fifth Industrial Tribunal on 12th September, 1996.3. In order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the judgment under appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts leading to the passing of the award.4. By an order of reference dated 23rd December, 1988, the State Govt. referred the industrial dispute between the writ petitioner company, M/s. Hindusthan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd., and the workm...
Tag this Judgment!Exoimp Resources (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN795(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.The question:The question of law that has been raised by Mr. Khaitan in this appeal is that despite the explanation in terms of section 68 was furnished by disclosing the list of subscribers along with the particulars of the permanent income-tax account number, wherever available, and the numbers of shares allotted and the face value of the shares, the assessing officer added the share capital as undisclosed income of the assessee without arriving at any conclusion as to the question whether the explanation was satisfactory or not.The appellant's contention:2. Mr. Khaitan submits that this was done by the assessing officer on the ground that no documents were furnished by the assessee despite opportunity being given. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the said order of the assessing officer on the same ground. The details of the documentary evidence were not furnished. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the assessing officer on two-fold reas...
Tag this Judgment!Exoimp Resources (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Cal)226,[2005]276ITR87(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The question :The question of law that has been raised by Mr. Khaitan in this appeal is that despite the explanation in terms of Section 68 was furnished by disclosing the list of subscribers along with the particulars of the permanent income-tax account number, wherever available, and the numbers of shares allotted and the face value of the shares, the AO added the share capital as undisclosed income of the assessee without arriving at any conclusion as to the question whether the explanation was satisfactory or not.The appellant's contention :2. Mr. Khaitan submits that this was done by the AO on the ground that no documents were furnished by the assessee despite opportunity being given. The CIT(A) affirmed the said order of the AO on the same ground. The details of the documentary evidence were not furnished. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) and the AO on two-fold reasons : (1) that the paper book that was filed did not bear any certificate that the docu...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Bibi Alias Anwari Begum and ors. Vs. Hilda Glady Sylus and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-2004
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN24
Aniruddha Bose, J.1. The subject of dispute in the present appeal is an immovable property, being premises No. 43, Taltolla Lane. The appellants claim to be the intending purchaser of the same by virtue of an agreement for sale entered into between Shaukat Ali, the predecessor of the appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 7, being the original owners of the premises, on 25th December, 1993. The respondent Nos. 8 and 9, claim to have acquired ownership of the said property by virtue of a deed of sale executed on 15th May, 1995 in their favour by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7. In both these transactions, one Noel David, as the constituted attorney of the original owners of the property (being respondent Nos. 1 to 7) had executed the documents on their behalf. The respondent Nos. 1 to 7 either by themselves or through Noel David did not enter into appearance before the Trial Court expectedly, and we did not direct service of notice upon them at the present stage of the proceeding.2. The present...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Shankar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ169CAT
1. This case has suffered a chequered history of litigation and therefore, it is necessary to state briefly the background facts at the outset.2. The applicant was working as Sr. Observer (Tech.), in the Meteorological Centre, Alipore and claimed to have been working without any blemish all through. In 1990 he was posted in the Bill Section of the office without obtaining his consent, although he belonged to Technical Side and was not supposed to be posted in the Administrative Side. On 20.9.94 the applicant was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding against him. Therefore on 8.9.95, a charge-memo was issued against him alleging that the applicant in collusion with others, while preparing OTA bills during the period from April, 1991 to September, 1994 for out station employees, illegally and fraudulently, drawn and defalcated an amount of Rs. 5,59,973/- by converting Proforma I into Proforma II. The applicant in his written statement denied and disputed ...
Tag this Judgment!Torence Osborno Ellie Vs. Sm. Namita Ganguly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT423(HC)
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.02.1995 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1992 reversing the judgment dated 29.01.1992 passed by the Munsif 2nd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 298 of 1979.2. The case of the defendant/appellant is that the plaintiff/respondent filed the suit praying for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on various grounds. According to the plaintiff/respondent, the defendant/ appellant was a tenant in respect to the suit premises under him at a monthly rent of Rs. 190/- payable according to English calendar month. As the tenant defaulted in paying the rent and as he was guilty for causing annoyance and nuisance, damages to the suit property and as he was guilty of subletting, so the plaintiff/respondent issued a notice to the defendant /appellant asking him to vacate the suit premises. But as the tenant did not vacate, so the plaintiff/landlord filed a suit for ...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendra Nath Ghosh Vs. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT96(HC),[2005(104)FLR420],(2005)ILLJ1052Cal
D.K. Seth, J.The Objection:1. A preliminary objection as to the eligibility of the writ petitioner to maintain the writ petition has been taken in the affidavit-in-opposition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that this was not considered by the learned single Judge. It seems that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has some substance. After having gone through the order appealed against, we do not find that the learned single Judge has considered the said preliminary objection taken by the earned counsel for the appellant.Breach of Section 29 ID Act : Whether disentitles employer to maintain writ petition:2. In the circumstances, we permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to elaborate his submission on the preliminary objection, which he did. The preliminary objection is that by reason of Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (1947 Act) the award becomes final and enforceable. By reason of Section 29, in case of breach of a...
Tag this Judgment!Chayan Kr. Roy and ors. Vs. Chairman/Chairperson, Central Selection Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-29-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN165
Indira Banerjee, J.1. These three writ applications, being W. P. 18135 (W) of 2003, W.P. 17017 (W) of 2003 and W.P. 18693 (W) of 2003 are all related to admission of students to two new Government Medical Colleges established in the State of West Bengal, namely, the Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education & Research, Kolkata, hereinafter referred to as 'IPGMER' and Midnapore Medical College.2. In the first writ petition, being W. P. 18135 (W) of 2003, the petitioners have inter alia challenged a notice published by the Directorate of Education, Government of West Bengal in newspapers on 19th July, 2003, inviting applications from Foreign/Non-Resident Indian (NRI)/NRI sponsored and management quota candidates for admission to Medical Colleges in the State of West Bengal on the basis of a separate entrance examination for the aforesaid candidates scheduled on 17th August, 2003. As per the said notice the amount of tuition fees payable and the college-wise break up of seats for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Annapurna Financing Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Cal)501,[2005]273ITR284(Cal)
D. K. Seth, J.1. The assessee, a private limited company, sold yarn on behalf of M/s. Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries, a sister concern, on consignment basis. The assessee earned commission on such sales and claimed that the 'carrying charges' were to be paid to the bankers of M/s. Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries (Bilaspur Industries for short) towards utilisation of certain credit facilities by the assessee. The carrying charges generally included bank charges, bank interest, etc., which the assessee was allegedly required to reimburse. As such, carrying charges has been disallowed in the past to the assessee as well as other assessees of this group, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the carrying charges for the assessment year under consideration which come to a sum of Rs. 27,90,717. In appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the same since they were being disallowed in the earlier years. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Kumar Mondal Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT416(HC),2006(1)CHN216
Asit Kumar Bisi, J.1. By the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner Bimal Kumar Mondal has sought quashing of proceeding of GR Case No. 60 of 2003, arising out of Suri Police Station Case No. 24 of 2003 dated 4.2.2003 under Sections 467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum.2. The facts anterior to filing of the instant application may briefly be narrated thus :-Suri Police Station Case No. 24 of 2003 dated 4.2.2003 under Sections 467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code was initiated on the basis of the FIR lodged by Debasish Som, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Birbhum Division, Suri, Birbhum with the Officer-in-Charge, Suri Police Station on 4.2.2003.3. It has been alleged inter alia by the de facto complainant in the FIR that 62 KVPs bearing No. 5 KVP 35BB 949007 to 949068 of denomination of Rs. 5,000/- each, having the total face valu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »