Kolkata Court November 2005 Judgments

Radhe Shyam Saraf (Huf) Vs. Central Bank of India

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)1CALLT541(HC)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. These applications are taken up for hearing. I put it on record that ordinarily I would not have taken up for hearing of the application for setting aside ex parte decree and I would have sent it to the regular suit Court which had passed the decree though I do have the jurisdiction to take up the matter: Learned Judge who had passed the decree has retired. I have taken up this application because of the fact that the execution application has been taken up for enforcement of the decree which is sought to be impugned by this application by the defendant. From the records I find that summons was duly served and thereafter the suit was placed in the list as undefended suit and the suit was heard for several days and decree was passed on March 12, 2004 and thereafter it was modified on April 06, 2004. The instant application for recalling of the decree was taken out on May 14, 2004. If the date of the passing of the decree is to be reckoned then this applicatio...

State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(1)CHN241

D.K. Seth, J. Prelude:1. These two appeals involve identical question of law and fact. Therefore both these matters were taken up and heard simultaneously. The appeals arise out of the interim orders granted by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions filed by the respondent Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. and Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. respectively.1.1. In course of hearing of the application for interim order the respective Counsel for the parties addressed the Court on the merit of the appeal. Therefore, at the suggestions of the parties the appeal was taken up for hearing. At the initial hearing of the appeal the parties had addressed the Court on the merit of the writ petitions as well. Since the Court was invited to decide the matter even on the question involved in the writ petition, therefore, it was deemed fit that the two writ petitions should also be disposed of, and the learned Counsel for the respective parties jointly suggested that the records of the writ...

P.G. Foils Ltd. and anr. Vs. National Agricultural Co-operative Market ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(2)CHN308

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The first respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition. 2. It is argued that the first respondent being a co-operative society within the meaning of provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, is not a State or authority against whom a writ petition can be moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contention a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Nafed Processed Food Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Employees Union and Ors. reported at : 90(2001)DLT754 , has been cited. 3. The case of the first petitioner is this. It obtained orders for export of rice to Bangladesh. Rice to be exported was to be collected from FCI. For execution of the work it entered into an agreement with the first respondent. In terms of the agreement the first respondent was to act on its behalf....

Kanoi Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)100ITD462(Kol.)

1. These three appeals of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A), Circle-I, Kolkata, dt. 20th Feb., 2004. As the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, these appeals of the assessee are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, (i) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the AO under Section 8(2)/10 of the Interest-tax Act, when the same is liable to be cancelled. (ii) For that the appellant begs leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.3. The assessee thereafter filed the following additional grounds of appeal common to all the assessment years under appeal: (i) That the action of initiating proceeding under Section 10 on the alleged ground of escapement of interest chargeable to tax, is bad in law. (ii) That the learned AO erred in having entertained this belief without holdin...

Arun Kanti Ghose Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(2)CHN145

1. This is an application for review of an order dated 28th November, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in F.A. No. 91 of 1995 thereby allowing the appeal.2. In this application for review, it is alleged that no notice of the appeal was ever issued from the office of this Court, nor did the applicant appear by filing any vokalatnama in the said appeal and as such, the applicant has been prejudicially affected by the ex parte order passed against the applicant.3. This application for review was filed along with an application for condonation of delay on the self-same plea.4. While allowing such application for condonation of delay, another Division Bench of this Court by order dated 31st August, 2005 specifically recorded that there was mistake on the part of the Court in not issuing notice of appeal upon the present applicant and as such, on that ground alone, the said Division Bench condoned the delay of 622 days in preferring the application for review.5. As indicated in ...

Udayan Mukherjee Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2007]291ITR318(Cal)

1. The appeal was admitted on the following ground:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the mistake in computation was intentional concealment and wrong furnishing of particulars though the assessee pointed out that there is a mistake in indexation and paid the entire tax and interest immediately ?2. Mr. Dipak Deb, learned senior counsel representing the Department, pointed out that this is a ground on fact, not a substantial question of law. In fact, as it appears from the ground, it seems to be misleading. The ground, if we read properly, may be coined as such:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the wrong calculation on the basis of mistaken indexation could be treated to be furnishing of wrong particulars or concealment of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?The submission of the Department:3. Mr. Deb next contended that so far as Section 271(1)(c) of th...

Auro Impex Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and or ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(1)CHN22

Soumitra Pal, J.1. The Court: In the writ petition the petitioners have prayed for several reliefs. The relevant prayer is as under :(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and each of them to forthwith attach rent payable and already paid by the respondent No. 7 to the respondent No. 6 in respect of room No. 6, 2nd floor, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata - 700 017.2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is the owner of a flat and the respondent No. 6 is a tenant under him in the said flat. The tenancy of the said flat is governed by the provisions contained in the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It has been submitted that without any previous consent in writing of the petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 6 on 1.10.1996 had inducted the respondent No. 7 as a sub-tenant. The respondent No. 6 had received substantial amount from the respondent No. 7 as rent ...

Allergan Inc. Vs. Chetana Pharmaceuticals

Court: Kolkata

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. First mentioned application taken out by the defendant for dismissal of the above suit and/or revocation of leave granted under Clause (12) of Letters Patent in the suit, and also for vacating all interim orders. The second mentioned application has been taken out by the plaintiff for suitable interlocutory relief in the aforesaid suit, The suit filed by the plaintiff for passing off against the defendant in relation to the mark 'Oxyline' used for marketing and selling of a medicinal product viz. eye drop. The plaintiff obtained ad interim order of injunction on 28th April, 1999, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Oxyline'. This interim order has been continuing till the date of hearing of both the applications. Learned Counsel for the defendant Mr. Ajoy Gupta submits that the application taken out by his client need not be heard separately, but the points and contentions taken therein should he considered at the time of hearing of the plaintiffs...

Veer Probhu Marketing Limited and Etc. Vs. National Supply Corporation ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal301

ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The aforesaid three applications are heard together as there is identity in issue, as regard fact and law though separate suits are filed. The aforesaid three applications have been taken out by Arab Bank for Investment and Foreign Trade who is the second defendant in all these three suits, for vacating and/or discharge of interim orders granted by this Court on interlocutory applications made in the three suits separately. The short fact of the case for which the aforesaid three suits were filed and consequently the application for vacating interim order of injunction was made, are stated hereunder.2. The plaintiffs in all the three suits being the suppliers and exporters of diverse kinds of agro-commodities, in course of their business sold and supplied to defendant No. 1 under several agreements certain quantities of chickpeas, coffee, natural Indian white rice and rice. In terms of the said agreement the first defendant in all these three suits for ...

Belle Vue Clinic and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(1)CHN191

Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya, J.1. A dispute case under Section 10(1B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was initiated at the instance of the respondent No. 4 before the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, West Bengal giving rise to Case No. 76/01 under Section 10(1B)(d) of the said Act.2. By an order being No. 6 dated 6.9.2005 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, the writ petitioner No.1 was directed to file written statement in connection with the said proceeding on 28.9.2005 which was a date also fixed for framing of issues. The said date was subsequently deferred to 10.11.2005.3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the writ petitioners before this Court as to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain such a dispute on the ground that the respondent No. 4 being not a 'workman' within the meaning of the definition of Section 2(s) of the said Act, cannot maintain such a proceeding before the Labour Court.4. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior Advocate, appearing for th...