Kolkata Court February 2005 Judgments
M.N. Dastur and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2005
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas618(Cal),(2005)197CTR(Cal)633,2006[4]STR3
D.K. Seth, J.The question :1. The short question raised by Dr. Pal in this appeal is as to whether the expression 'engineering firm' used in the definition of consulting engineer in Section 65(13) of the Finance Act, 1994, Chapter V relating to service tax includes a company.Submission on behalf of the appellants :2. Dr. Pal pointed out from the definitions defined in Section 65 that, while defining various categories of assessees liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, Chapter V, the legislature has employed the expression 'person', 'concern' or 'commercial concern' except in Section 65(13) while defining 'consulting engineer'. Whereas in the definition of 'consulting engineer', the legislature had employed the expression 'firm', which is distinct and different from the expression used in the other definitions. By reason thereof, the legislature had consistently expressed its intention to treat consulting engineer differently from the other categories of assessees liabl...
Tag this Judgment!itc Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Kol.)1017
1. There are three appeals, all filed by the assessee for each of the asst. yr. 1998-99 (ITA No. 59/Kol/2004), 1999-2000 (ITA No.667/Kol/2004) and 2000-01 (ITA No. 788/Kol/2004). Since the grounds involved in the above three appeals are common, the same were heard together and disposed of by this consolidated order.2. Ground No. 1 for the appeals relating to the asst. yrs. 1998-99 and 1999-00 relates to the allowability of expenditure incurred by the assessee to protect goodwill. The amounts of disallowance involved for the asst. yr. 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are Rs. 52.79 crores and Rs. 2.02 crores, respectively. The facts involved in the said common ground are that the assessee is a company incorporated in India and engaged in various business activities, e.g., manufacture and sale of cigarettes, running of hotels, etc. ITC Classic Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ITC Classic") was a company engaged in the business of financial services. The assessee used to hold a substantial ...
Tag this Judgment!Saili Halder Vs. Debaprasad Halder and State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT12(HC),2005(3)CHN87,II(2005)DMC856
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 20.08.2004 passed by the Id. Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore in Case No. M-60/2004 refusing the prayer for her interim maintenance.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that the present petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr. PC being registered as Case No. M-60/2004 against her husband the present O.P. No. 1, in the Court of Id. SDJM, Alipore with a prayer for interim maintenance for self and her two minor sons, but the Court of Id. Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore to which the case was transferred, while granted interim maintenance in favour of her two sons to the tune of Rs. 350/- p.m. each refused her prayer for interim maintenance vide order dated 20.08.2004.3. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order, the present revision has been preferred.4. All that now requires to be considered is ...
Tag this Judgment!Karna Let Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN173
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The writ petition has been moved praying for a direction upon the respondents to award statutory marks to the petitioner in consonance with his academic qualification and, thereafter, if total marks secured by the petitioner is more than the marks obtained by the candidate last appointed, then the petitioner should be appointed immediately with retrospective effect.2. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, that the allegations made in the writ petition are unfounded or baseless since it has not been affirmed in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (for short 'the rules'). Further, according to him, the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of laches since the writ petition has been moved in July, 2004 challenging a purported action by the respondents which took place during June,...
Tag this Judgment!Swarup Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN194
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the chargesheet being No. 90 of 2002 dated 31.05.2002 arising out of Golsi P.S. Case No. 79 of 2002 dated 31.05.2002 under Sections 294 & 509 IPC pending before the Court of ld. SDJM, Burdwan.2. The petitioner's case is that on the complaint lodged on 31.05.2002 by the de facto complainant Soma Dutta, who is a student of Class-IX of Khano High School alleging that on 02.04.2002 the present petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher of the said school, called her in the first floor of the school, and told that he loves her and gave an indecent proposal on alluring to give her text books. On 31.05.2002 at about 11.00 a.m. he further called her to the first floor of the school and forcibly tried to outrage her modesty which she could not disclose earlier out of shame. On the basis of said complaint, Golsi P.S. Case No. 79 of 2002 dated 31.05.2002 under Sections 294 & 509 IPC was s...
Tag this Judgment!Anima Majhi Vs. Arun Majhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT553(HC),2006(1)CHN467,II(2005)DMC765
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems form an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 29.06.2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur in Criminal Misc. Case 127 of 2004 under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code.2. The petitioner's case is that on being driven out by her son -the opposite party who used to torture upon her physically and keeping her confined without offering any food and water, she was compelled to take shelter in her daughter's house. Her earlier Misc. Case 152 of 1997 was disposed of on compromise as the opposite party promised to take care of her but ultimately she was subjected to further torture. The opposite party is an employee of DSP and earning a salary of Rs. 12697.40 p.m. The petitioner was allowed by the impugned order dated 29.06.2004 a paltry sum of Rs. 450/- p.m. from the date of order as against her claim for Rs. 1500/- p.m. as maintenance.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied w...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ellenbarrie Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: [2005]64SCL196(Cal)
ORDERAshim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This winding up petition carne up before me after advertisement. The appearing creditors filed Affidavits supporting the petition for winding up.2. In the meantime, the company also proposed a Scheme under Section 391(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 and ultimately filed an application being C.P. No. 277 of 2004 for final sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement between the parties.3. I heard this matter from time to time. 1 gave opportunity to the company to pay off the creditors in a phased manner. Lump sum payments were made in course of hearing and such lump sum payments were distributed pro rata amongst the appearing creditors. Initially there had been dispute with regard to the amounts claimed by the respective creditors and the amounts admitted in the application for sanction of the scheme of Arrangement by the company. Now the disputes have been resolved. The company has accepted the claims of the creditors as claimed by them in the respective pleading...
Tag this Judgment!Abul Kalam Mallick and ors. Vs. Abdul Aziz Mallick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN557
Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. The present hearing arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same is directed against judgment and order dated 6th August, 2002 passed by the Addl. District Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 180 of 2000 reversing the order dated 11th July, 2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 7th Court, Howrah in T.S.No. 64 of 2000.2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that as plaintiffs brought a suit being T.S. No. 64 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), 7th Court, Howrah against the defendant/O.P. for a decree of declaration that the defendants/O.Ps. had no right, title and interest in the property comprised in Dag Nos. 672, 924 and 926 of Khatian Nos. 281 and 283 of Mouza Telehati, P.S. Jagatballavpur, District-Howrah measuring about 16 bighas 2 cottah and the said suit property consisted of a tank known as 'Mahato Tank' and its bank and land described in the Schedule of the plaint and ...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Show and ors. Vs. Kalyani Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN58
Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for both sides.2. The argument is concluded.3. The hearing arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it is directed against Order No. 13 dated 25.1.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Howrah in Civil Revision No. 156 of 1999 which arose out of Order No. 112 dated 9.7.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 1 of 1994.4. A prayer was made before the Trial Court, Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah for admitting the certified copies of the order-sheet, police report and the petition in connection with a misc. case under Section 144 of Cr.PC. The Trial Court held that the order-sheet of the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.PC was public document and the other documents, namely, the copy of the petition under Section 144 of Cr.PC and the police report in connection thereof were not public documents and, as such, the ce...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Anil Kumar Dey Vs. Sri Bidhu Bhusan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT313(HC)
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. An order dated 12th April 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 296 of 1998 affirming the order dated 4 September 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 3 of 1997, is under challenge in this revisional application.2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of his tenancy right in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction.3. After filing the said suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, praying for an order of temporary injunction for restraining the defendant/opposite party No. 1 and his men, agents from interfering and/or disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.4. The learned trial Judge by his order being Order No. 2 dated 10th January 1997 was pleased to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »