Kolkata Court May 2005 Judgments
Basanti Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN539
1. A weeping mother has moved this application for Habeas Corpus who suffers the distraught pain of missing of her minor girl Kumari Kanan Roy for the following direction:'a) Issue writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to produce the minor victim girl, Kanan Roy, dead or alive before this Hon'ble Court and to hand over the victim minor girl to the petitioner (mother)' and other subsidiaries.2. After admitting this writ application we directed issuance of notice on respondent Nos. 7 to 15 since we had found respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and respondent No. 16 has already entered appearance.3. Respondent No. 7 being untraceable could not be served.4. Directions for affidavits were passed but, however, no return has been filed by any of the parties. However, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has produced the documents in support of his case.5. On the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner respondent No. 17 stood deleted as he had no cause...
Tag this Judgment!Palriwal Hydrocarbons and Chemicals Private Limited and anr. Vs. Assis ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: [2005]142STC336(Cal)
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated September 21, 2004 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', in R.N. 384 of 2004.2. The grievance of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows:The petitioner No. 1 is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The said petitioner purchased two Tata Diesel Vehicles under two invoices, both dated August 10, 2004, at a price of Rs. 9,76,456 each. M/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. was the financier for the purchase of the said two vehicles. The said two vehicles were delivered by delivery challans, both dated August 10, 2004 and two sales certificates, both dated August 10, 2004 by M/s. Mithila Motors Ltd. Temporary certificate of registration was granted in respect of the said two vehicles as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioners fixed two second hand tankers on the said two vehicles for us...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhendu Guha Thakurta Vs. Recovery Officer, Drt and ors. and State Ba ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas311(Cal)
Narayan Chandra Sil, J.1. C.O. No. 1040 is directed against the order impugned No. 8 dated March 10, 1999 and order dated March 30, 1999, passed by the learned Recovery Officer in pursuance of ex parte order/ judgment dated December 5,1996, passed by the learned Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta and C. O. No. 262 of 1999 is directed against the Order No. 4, dated October 28, 1998, passed by the learned Recovery Officer in pursuance of an ex parte order/judgment dated September 17, 1997, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Calcutta.2. It is clearly stated by the petitioner in C. O. No. 1040 of 1999 in paragraph 8 that both the matters are analogous in nature. Thus as the parties are in agreement for analogous hearing of the matters I have taken up both the revision applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for analogous hearing as the question of law in both the revisions are same and similar.3. The facts of the case in brief are that a mort...
Tag this Judgment!Eastern Wood Products Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, College Street Charg ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: [2006]144STC202(Cal)
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The instant application under article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated September 23, 2004 passed by the learned West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in R.N.-345 of 2004.2. The backdrop of the present case may be capsulated in few sentences as follows :The petitioner, a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 filed return under the said Act during the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991, declaring gross turnover at Rs. 1,80,519 and also paid sales tax for Rs. 1,01,675 which included the disputed sum of Rs. 50,000. In the challan relating to the said sum of Rs. 50,000 the period was mentioned as for four quarters ending March 31, 1992. The said amount was actually paid for the period four quarters ending March 31, 1991. By an ex parte assessment order dated December 23, 1992 the respondent No. 1, being Commercial Tax Officer, estimated the gross turnover at Rs. 50,000 for the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Sankari Roy (Smt.) Proprietrix of Bharat Homeo Laboratory and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2005
Reported in: [2006(108)FLR565],(2006)IILLJ203Cal
S.K. Gupta, J.1. This revisional application has been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order dated January 31, 2004, passed by the learned 12th Sessions Judge, City Civil Court in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1997, whereby he confirmed the order of conviction, as passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court in Case No. C/1313/1993. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is the proprietrix and the petitioner No. 2 is the manager of Bharat Homeo Laboratory, situated at Taki Road, Barasat. The criminal case was instituted against them on the allegation that the petitioners failed to deposit the employers' and employees' share of contribution for the period from October 1990 to September 1992 within the specified time and as such they were liable to be punished under Sections 85(a) and 85(b) of ESI Act as well as under Section 85(g) of the said Act. On the basis of the said complaint cognisance was taken and ...
Tag this Judgment!Asok Kumar Yagnik Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ3620
ORDERAshit Kumar Bisi, J.1. By the instant revision application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 385/2004 under Sections 463/465/467/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the instant revision application may briefly be narrated thus.3. The complainant presently O.P. No. 2 filed the petition of complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas against the present petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 463/465/467/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegations made in the complaint in the month of April, 2001 the complainant under the compelling circumstances instituted Title Suit No. 80/2001 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Ali...
Tag this Judgment!Rustam Ali Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT222(HC)
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. Thirteen (13) members out or Twenty one (21) requested the Pradhan of Nimtita Gram Panchayat to convene a meeting for discussion on the agenda regarding removal of the Pradhan. In spite of receipt of the said request the Pradhan being the petitioner herein admittedly did not convene the meeting for discussion on the said agenda in terms of the provision as contained in Section 16 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.2. Since the Pradhan failed to convene the meeting within the period as prescribed under the statute, the said 13 members of the said Gram Panchayat requsitioned the meeting for the said purpose.3. The notice, by which the said meeting was convened by the requisitionists is appearing at page 41 being Annexure p-8 to this writ petition.4. The said notice is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the Prodhan who defaulted in discharging his statutory obligation.5. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Chandi Prasad Sikaria Vs. Premlata Nahata and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN664
Pinaki Chandra Ghosh, J.1. This appeal is directed from an order dated June 16, 2004 rejecting the application of the appellant/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC).2. It appears from the facts that the appellant/petitioner applied before the Hon'ble First Court for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit is barred on the ground of multifariousness and bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action.3. It appears from the facts that the instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) and the plaintiff No. 1 pleaded that the appellant/petitioner (the defendant) is a registered stock broker of the Calcutta Stock Exchange (hereinafter referred to as the CSE) and also a registered broker with the Securities & Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as the SEBD. The respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 1) at the request of the appellant/petitioner (defendant) lent and advanced f...
Tag this Judgment!The Howrah Motor Company Limited Vs. Exide Industries Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT573(HC),2006(4)CHN271
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the defendant/appellant in respect of an order dated 20th January, 2005.2. The said order contains the following directions ;(i) The plaintiff/respondent given liberty to file a Supplementary Affidavit in respect of the witness who had already filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit.(ii) The plaintiff has been directed to file further Affidavit Evidence in respect of other witnesses proposed to be called by the plaintiff.(iii) The defendant/appellant has been given liberty to file their Affidavit Evidence in similar fashion within two weeks thereafter even before the cross-examination of the first witness is complete.3. Mr. Ghowdhury, learned senior advocate appeals on behalf of the appellant/ defendant submitted that each and every direction is erroneous and is liable to be set aside by reason of the direction being contrary to the High Court Rules (Original Side), the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. The di...
Tag this Judgment!Hilltop Holdings India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT409(HC),(2005)197CTR(Cal)619,[2005]278ITR501(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.The background:1. This appeal has been preferred against an order dt. 28th July, 2003, passed in Writ Petn. No. 446 of 2002 by the learned Single Judge. In the writ petition, the initiation of the proceeding under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of an order contemplated under Section 143(1) was challenged on the ground that in respect of such an order, Section 263 has no manner of application.The learned Single Judge rejected the plea on the ground that if an improper assessment order has been made under Section 143(2), the revenue is lost and the State cannot prefer an appeal against such a decision. If despite mistake having been committed in exercising power under Section 143(2), the AO does not exercise its power under Section 154, no action in appeal can be taken against it. In order to save Revenue from such an eventuality, the legislature has embodied Section 263 in the Act. Such a case is definitely prejudicial to the Revenue sufficient for invoking Sec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »