Skip to content

Kolkata Court October 2005 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.

Oct 06 2005

Cit Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Oct-06-2005

Reported in: [2006]282ITR209(Cal)

D. K. Seth J.The questions :Against the order of the learned Tribunal holding in favour of the assessee that the first year's subscription was a capital receipt, a reference under section 256(2) was sought by the revenue before this High Court. Following the decision in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India : 1991CriLJ1391 , this High Court was pleased to hold that the case does not involve any question of law. This was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 824-825 of 2001. By an order dated 3-12-2002, the Apex Court was pleased to hold that the High Court was not correct and ultimately to direct the Tribunal to make a statement of case and refer to the High Court for its opinion the following questions :'(a) Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve bank of India : 1991CriLJ1391 lays down as an absolute proposition of law that all receipts of subscriptions in the hands...


Oct 05 2005

Shree Vardaan Improvement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Puspa Devi Agarwal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Oct-05-2005

Reported in: 2005(4)CHN487

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of defendant No. 1 in a suit for permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 16 dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the learned Judge 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 471 of 2005 thereby disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by directing the parties to maintain status quo in the matter of installation of a capsule lift in the suit property till the disposal of the suit.2. The plaintiff-respondents, twelve in number, filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta being Title Suit No. 471 of 2005 thereby praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1, its men, agents and subordinates from installing and/errecting any capsule lift and/or capsule elevator in any portion of 25A, Camac Street, Calcutta-700 016, which is known as Vardaan Market. The plaintiffs further prayed for permanent injunction restr...


Oct 05 2005

Samar Ghosh Vs. Rambaran Singh

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Oct-05-2005

Reported in: (2006)1CALLT502(HC)

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of an alleged debtor in a proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act ('Act') and is directed against Order No. 3 dated April 1,2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Insolvency Case No. 198 of 2005 thereby allowing an application under Section 20 of the Act by appointing the Official Receiver, South 24-Parganas as interim receiver to the estate of the appellant with a direction to realise a sum of Rs. 2,000/- a month from the salary of the appellant from that month onwards until further order through the disbursing authority, viz., Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Camac Street Branch and the disbursing authority was directed to deposit the amount with the Official Receiver month by month.2. The respondent herein filed an application under Section 13(2) of the Act for adjudicating the appellant as a debtor on the following allegations:(a) The appellant works for...


Oct 04 2005

Amar Chandra Roy Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Oct-04-2005

Reported in: (2006)1CALLT26(HC)

A.K. Bhattacharya, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 306 of 1999 on 30.05.2001,2. Shortly put, the prosecution case is that on 26.06.1997 at about 5.30 a.m. when the defacto complainant's sole son Dinesh Chandra Roy, aged about 13 years, being accompanied by his maternal grandmother (P.W. 2) went to the river-bed of river Kumlai to tether cow, all on a sudden accused Amar Chandra Roy appeared there and stabbed him with a knife resulting in his hospitalisation at Jalpaiguri Hospital and therefrom to N.B.M.C&H.;, Siliguri where he succumbed to injuries on 12.07.1997. Hence, the accused was charged under Section 326/304 IPC.3. The defence case, as suggested to P.Ws. and as contended by the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, is that no such incident took place and he has been falsely implicated in this case.4. Nine witn...


Oct 04 2005

Md. Sarif Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Oct-04-2005

Reported in: (2006)1CALLT196(HC)

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, under the N.D.P.S. Act, Howrah in T.R. No. 32/ 2002 on 23.12.2003.2. Shortly put. and shorn of details, the Prosecution case is that, acting on a specific information which reduced in writing and being instructed by the superior officers, on 01.07.2002 at about 16.30 hrs. a batch of officers and staff of N.C.B., E.Z.U., Calcutta intercepted one person by name Md. Sarif at Sitalatala bus-stoppage on Sharkiral Road, Howrah and on informing that they had specific information about his carrying heroin, the officers expressed their intention to search him, that he has a right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and that if he so desired, he may be searched before the departmental Gazetted Officer, to which he expressed his willinaness in writing to be searched before a Gazetted Officer of the department. On bein...


Oct 04 2005

Dalsinger Singh Vs. Dayamoyee Sadhukhan

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Oct-04-2005

Reported in: 2006(2)CHN420

P.K. Samanta, J.1. This is an application for stay of all further proceedings of execution of eviction decree passed in the year 1981. 2. The ejectment suit was filed sometime in year 1972 by the plaintiffs/ respondents against the predecessor-in-interest of the defendents/appellants namely Dalsinger Singh since deceased. 3. The said suit was ultimately decreed in favour of the plantiffs/respondents sometime in the year 1981. The original defendant/appellant preferred an appeal being F.A. No. 312 of 1981 against the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 4. The original defendant/appellant died on 31.12.90. An application for substitution on his death was though made but the same was defective. In spite of direction by the Court such defect was not removed consequent thereupon the appeal stood dismissed on 9.6.2000. 5. However, the said appeal was restored on an application. Thereafter heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased original defendant/appellant were substitu...


Oct 04 2005

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Assam Biri Factories (P) Ltd. ...

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Oct-04-2005

Reported in: (2006)3CALLT62(HC)

Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. The petitioner. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Calcutta filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers:a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents not to give effect and/or further effect to annexure 'PI' to the petition.b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the Respondents to produce the records of the case and after perusal of the same to quash the same.2. Affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Affidavit-in-reply to the said opposition was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Supplementary Affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner and it was stated in the Supplementary Affidavit that by mistake, respondent No. 5 that is the Presiding Officer, EPF Tribunal hadn't been shown as party/respondent in the writ petition. It was stated that actually this is a typographical mistake and the learned Advocate of the petitioner missed the same. Actually, when final typ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial