Kolkata Court February 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.
Madhulata Kankani Vs. Homant Bangur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal268,2005(2)CHN1
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 14 dated October 7, 2004 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 972 of 2004 thereby dismissing an application for temporary injunction filed by the present appellant.2. The appellant herein filed a suit being the aforesaid Title Suit No. 972 of 2004 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta thereby praying for declaration that she has acquired a licence coupled with grant in respect of a lawn/garden situated -at premises No. 10, Bakery Road, P.S. Hastings, Kolkata - 700 022 comprising an area of 12 cottahs of land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and successors-in-office from making any construction on the suit property or changing the nature and character of the same.3. In connection with the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff-...
All India General Insurance Employees' Congress and Ors. Vs. General I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN608,(2005)IIILLJ571Cal
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The four petitioners in this writ petition are aggrieved by the fact that because of the results of the check-off system published by the respondent insurance companies on May 31st, 2004, the first and second petitioners have lost the status of representative union; and consequently, the right of further participation in the ongoing wage negotiation.2. In exercise of powers conferred on it by provisions of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972, the Central Government established a Government company, called -- General Insurance Corporation of India. In course of time it floated four subsidiaries (National Insurance Company Ltd., New India Assurance Company Ltd., Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and United India Insurance Company Ltd.), the third, fourth, fifth and sixth respondents in this case.3. Facing with the problem of claims made by the ever-increasing numberof unions regarding right of representation in structured meetings anddiscus...
Management, Ludlow Jute Mills Vs. Sheikh Moymur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT9(HC),[2005(105)FLR532],(2005)IILLJ922Cal
Dilip Kumar Seth and Soumitra Pal, JJ.1. While addressing the Court on the question of grant of stay both the learned counsel for the parties had addressed the Court on the merit of the appeal itself.2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that any order passed on the stay application would virtually ] affect the merit of the appeal and no purpose will be served by keeping the appeal pending.3. In the circumstances, the appeal is treated as on day's list for hearing by consent of the parties and the same is being disposed of along with the application for stay as hereafter.4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that by its order dated September 13, 2004 passed in W.P. No. 13633 (W) of 2003, the learned single Judge was pleased to direct the Conciliation Officer to submit his report within two months. But the learned counsel for the appellant points out from the expression used in the order that there are some ambiguit...
Acharya Ramendra Sundar Primary Teachers Training Institute and anr. V ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2157
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the President of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education on 7th June, 2004 appearing at page 98 of this writ petition by which the petitioners' prayer for grant of recognition to the proposed Primary Teachers' Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as the P.T.T.I.), was refused on three fold grounds; firstly, oh the ground that the proposed P.T.T.I. has no land building of its own, secondly on the ground that the applicant does not fulfil the required conditions for grant of recognition, and thirdly, on the ground that the recognition Committee constituted under the Act, did not recommend the name of the proposed P.T.T.I. for such grant.2. Mr. Asish Sanyal, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, challenged the legality and/or validity of the said order, firstly, on the ground that the said order is a nullity, as the same was passed by an authority who is not authorised to pas such a...
Peerless Securities Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)60SCL59NULL
1. Under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), the Hon'ble President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has constituted this Special Bench to consider the following question:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards development fee and fees for operating on the floor paid to Calcutta Stock Exchange Association, towards admission fee and technology cost paid to OTC Exchange of India and towards Non-adjustable deposit for Membership subscription and deposit for Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) paid to National Stock Exchange of India could be treated as revenue or capital expenditure?" 2.1 The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to get deduction in computing the total income of the assessee. The payment of Rs. 70,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 on account of development fee and fee for operating on ...
Peerless Securities Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)94ITD89(Kol.)
1. Under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal has constituted this Special Bench to consider the following question : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards development fee and fees for operating on the floor paid to Calcutta Stock Exchange Association, towards admission fee and technology cost paid to OTC Exchange of India and towards non-adjustable deposit for membership subscription and deposit for Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) paid to National Stock Exchange of India could be treated as revenue or capital expenditure ?" 2.1. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal involved several issues, one of which was whether the assessee was entitled to get deduction in computing the total income of the assessee. The payment of Rs. 70,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 on account of development fee and fee for operating on the floor to Calcutta Stock...
Trend Vyappar Ltd. and anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN495
Altamas Kabir, A.C.J. 1. The appellant No. 1 in this appeal is a Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and claims to be carrying on business at 24, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata - 1. The appellant No. 2 is a Director-shareholder of the appellant No. 1 Company.2. The respondent No. 6, the Kelvin Jute Company Ltd. is the owner of Kelvin Jute Mill. Having suffered considerable losses which eroded its net worth, the Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. was unable to make its net worth positive and filed a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) for rehabilitation of the Company.3. By order dated 8th February, 1988, the Company was declared sick under the aforesaid Act and finally the BIFR by its order dated 8th November, 1985, recommended that the Company should be wound up. The view of the BIFR was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 6th May, 1997.4. Notwithstanding the re...
Sarbeswar Giri Vs. Bimalendu Khatua
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT254(HC),2006(1)CHN553
Narayan Chandra Sil, J.1. This is to consider a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which arose out of order dated 28.11.2003 passed in Civil Revision No. l of 2003 by Sri Kali Sadhan Samajder, the learned Additional District Judge, Midnapore affirming the order dated 31.08. 2001 passed in J. Misc. Case No. 46 of 1999 by Sri S.D. Chatterjee, Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Contai.2. It appears from the petition that one application under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for preemption to preempt the land sold in favour of the Opposite Party was filed as an owner of the adjacent land. Subsequently an application for amendment of the original application was filed having claimed preemption on the ground of being co-sharer also of the vendor. It is also stated in paragraph 6 of the petition that the O.P. did not raise any objection to such proposed amendment. But the learned Trial Court by order dated 31.08.2002 rejected the said...
Madan Mohan Das Vs. Kartick Chandra Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal92
ORDERJyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. In spite of service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondents to oppose the prayer of the petitioner at the time when the matter is called on for hearing.2. Affidavit of service filed in Court to- day be kept on record.3. This revisional application is directed against an order being No. 18 dated 3rd March, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 149 of 2003.4. The defendant No. 1 in a suit for declaration and injunction is the petitioner before this Court.5. The defendant/petitioner appeared in the suit on 11th September, 2003 without summons being served upon him. After entering appearance in the said suit, the said defendant/petitioner prayed for time for filing written statement. However, the said defendant did not file the written statement within the date fixed by the Court and the time was again extended by the Court below for filing written statement. The defendant even did not f...
Samir Ganguly Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Easte ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3276
ORDERAsit Kuamr Bisi, J.1. The instant revision application arises out of the order dated 7th August, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly in N.D.P.S. Case No. 7 of 2002.2. The facts anterior to filing of the instant revision application may briefly be narrated thus.3. The present petitioner Samir Ganguly is an accused in N.D.P.S. Case No. 7/2002 which was initiated on the basis of a written complaint made by Shri Sadananda Mondal, Intelligence Officer attached to Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zone Unit, Calcutta. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the above noted case is not instituted on the basis of a police report and the same is a warrant case instituted otherwise that on police report, the procedure laid down under Sections 244 to 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be followed in the instant case. It is the grievance of the petitioner that since the learned Additional Sessions Judge who has been empowered to try the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »