Kolkata Court May 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.
Electro Zavod (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Cal)612,[2005]278ITR187(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta J.1. By this application the petitioners have basically challenged orders of attachment dated May 30, 1997, and dated November 2, 1999. The former one is provisional order of attachment under Section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), while doing so the petitioner has also challenged an order dated October 12, 2001, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central II, Calcutta, in purported compliance with the orders dated August 7, 2000, and August 22, 2001, passed in the previous writ petition being numbered (WP) 1456 of 1997. The facts of the case, which lead to filing of the instant application, are stated hereunder :2. The first petitioner entered into an agreement dated April 29, 1997, with respondent No. 9 for purchase of two flats on the first and second floors of the premises No. P-360/2, Keyatala Road, Kolkata, covering approximately an area of 3,500 sq. ft. and half of the ground floor including common facilit...
Travels and Rentals Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT297(HC)
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The Court: The writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the appellate Tribunal for foreign exchange dated February 1, 2005 directing them to file separate appeals with requisite fees to be paid separately.2. Provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000, Rule 10, provide that for an appeal presented to the appellate Tribunal in terms of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Section 19, the appellant is to pay a fee of rupees ten thousand.3. In this case a show-cause notice dated May 31, 2002 was issued by the adjudicating authority in terms of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The show-cause was issued against the company. Subsequently by attracting provisions of Section 68 of that Act the adjudicating authority directed four natural persons to show cause why steps should not be taken against them also, as the persons responsible to the company for the condu...
Md. Shamim Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN772
Alok Kumar Basu, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of one Md. Shamim is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly in connection with NDPS Case No. 4 of 1998.2. The prosecution case was that on the basis of a secret information, the Intelligence Officer of Narcotic Control Bureau led by a Gazetted Officer intercepted Md. Shamim in front of booking counter of Bandel Railway Station at 17.45 hours on 30th March, 1988. Md. Shamim was found carrying a polythene bag in his left hand.3. In the presence of officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau and local witnesses and after complying with all legal formalities, the polythene bag was searched and 200 grams of heroin was recovered from the said polythene bag and on the spot, the officer seized the said heroin under a seizure list in presence of local witnesses. Sample was drawn from the seized articles and thereafter sample and the remaining seized articles were sealed and labelled in prese...
Deepika Developers (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Commissioner, Calcu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN435
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.2. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows:That the petitioners claim to be the owner of municipal premises No. 40, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-17 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) and the said premises has been leased out to one Palia Devi Bhagat at Rs. 2,500/- per month. According to the petitioners the said premises is a two-storied building with vacant land and the annual valuation of the same was assessed under Section 174(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 at Rs. 50,000/- w.e.f. 4th quarter 1990-91 and the valuation was fixed at Rs. 25,000/-for residential portion and Rs. 25,000/- for non-residential portion. According to the petitioners the respondent authorities proposed to assess the annual valuation of the building at Rs. 1,69,000/- from the 4th quarter, 1996-97 and the petitioners filed objection. The petitioners case is that the hearing took place and by order dated ...
Sk. Sarfaraz Alias Sarfu and ors. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT150(HC)
Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in connection with Sessions Trial No. 3(4)/99.2. This case relates to a daring act of murder of a person in broad daylight near busy thoroughfares. It was unfurled during the trial while on 21.06.98 round about 12.30 hrs. Armed constable Jiwan Kr. Gurung and Sepoi Niranjan Acharya were on duty in front of Body Guard Lines, a taxi cam along National Library Avenue at a high speed. Mounting the footpath, the taxi rammed against the southern boundary walls of Body Guard Lines. The Sepoi and the constable saw one of the passenger of the taxi trying to alight from the said taxi, screaming for help. Another passenger of the taxi was seen pulling his T-shirt to prevent him from escaping. However, the man in distress wriggled out of their clutch. He made desperate bid to safe his life by entering into the Body Guard Lines Compound. He was ...
Barrackpore Supplier Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN437
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. Heard the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. In spite of notices none appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that in accordance with the requisition made by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner manufactured and supplied certain furniture to the respondent No. 4 and submitted a final bill dated 20.5.1992 for a sum of Rs. 57,000.00 towards the value of the goods manufactured and supplied by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner made several representations and visits to the office of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for payment of the aforesaid bill but the bill remained unpaid. The learned Advocate for the petitioners referred to letter dated 20.11.1995 whereform it appears that the respondent No. 4 wrote to the petitioner stating that the respondent authorities were not in a position to release the outstanding payment at that point of time but they are trying their bes...
Mukundray K. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Cal)563,[2005]277ITR128(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.The background :1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act'), has been preferred against the order dated January 28, 2005, passed by the learned Tribunal in the block assessment against the assessee for the period April 1, 1990 to August 24, 2000. The dispute relates to a few entries for the previous year 1999-2000 in relation to the assessee's investment in 9 per cent. RBI Relief Bonds amounting to Rs. 6,93,00,000 out of total investment of Rs. 26,35,00,000 made in the said previous year. The Assessing Officer had treated these investments as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the 1961 Act.The facts :2. In order to appreciate the situation, we may briefly refer to those portions of facts, which are relevant for the present purpose. M/s. M. K. Tea Pvt. Ltd. (MKTPL), in which the assessee is one of the shareholders, paid Rs. 69,00,000 on December 7, 1999, and Rs. 25,00,000 on December 22, ...
Propart Advertising Services (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of West Benga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT561(HC)
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged the acts and actions of the State respondents regarding enhancing of the annual licensee fee/rent as proposed by the respondent State Government for displaying advertisement at Theme Park upon renewing the earlier agreement.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Government of West Bengal while renewing the license for putting up hoarding proposed exorbitant enhancement of the annual license fees. In the present case, undisputedly, the agreement provides for renewal but does not provide any guidelines for determination of annual fees/rents to be charge during the period of renewal. Clause (1) of the Deed of Lease executed by the petitioner clearly provides for further renewal of the lease period. The respondent State Government has also agreed to grant renewal in the present case.3. The only question now to be decided is whether the Government is entitled to charge renewal fees at exorbitant ...
Krishna Prasad Paul Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN308
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Sections 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Code), 1973 is directed against order dated 13.7.04 passed by the ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), West Midnapore in G. R. Case No. 265/2004 arising out of Narayangarh Police Station Case No. 9 dated 13.2.04 under Sections 363/366/366A/368 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and order dated 19.7.04 passed by the ld. Sessions Judge, West Midnapore in Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2004 thereby rejecting the petition of informant petitioner for return of the minor victim girl, his own daughter, into his custody.2. Mr. Ganesh Srivastava, ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the father of the victim girl. The incident of kidnapping of the victim girl took place on 5.2.04 when the victim was approximately 15 years 10 months in age. Her date of birth according to admit card issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is 1.4.88 ...
Smt. Basanti Das and ors. Vs. Kulada Prosad Bhowmick Alias Bhowmik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT369(HC)
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 10th October 1996 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 815 of 1986 reversing the Judgment and decree dated 3rd September 1986 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 420 of 1981.2. The appellants in this appeal were the plaintiffs in a suit for eviction of a tenant for reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs/landlord under Section 13(1)(ff) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.3. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Judge on contest. The learned first Appellate Court reversed the said decree in appeal filed by the tenant/defendant.4. Since neither of the parties addressed this Court on any other issue excepting the issue as to whether the plaintiffs/appellants feasonably require the suit premises for their own use and occupation or not, this Court restricts its consideration only to the said issue.5....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »