Kolkata Court August 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.
B. Dharma Rao and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)(91)SLJ313CAT
1. The applicant was medically decategorised and consequent on decategorisation, order dated 24.4.2001 was issued. The said order reads under:South Eastern Railway Office of the DRM(P)Office Order Waltair, dt. 24.4.2001 The following orders of alternative posting/absorption are issued with the approval of ADRM/WAT. 1. Shri M. Prasadarao, Ex. Sr. D/Asstt/WAT in scale Rs. 4000-6000 (RSRP) Rate of pay Rs. 4000 who was medically xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxx. 2. Shri B. Dharma Rao, Ex. Tech. II/DYD/WAT in scale Rs. 4000-6000 RSRP rate of pay Rs. 4300 who was medically decategorised from B1 to C1 (Bee one to Cee-one) with glasses for DV vide M.C. No. Spl./51 dt. 24.8.2000 and subsequently recommended for the post of Call Boy by the duly constituted Screening Committee, vide this Office O.O. No. Estt/Med/ Decat/05/2001 dt. 6.4.2001 is now alternatively posted/absorbed as 'Call Boy' in scale Rs. 2550-3200 RSRP under CC/Loco/VSKP. 2. Sri, No. 1 Shri M. Prasada Rao should be under training for the pe...
Sushil Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ179CAT
1. These three original applications along with the connected MAs/RA are taken up together for disposal as similar facts and points of law are involved.2. For the sake of convenience we shall take up OA 55/98 first. This OA has been filed by four applicants as named in the cause title.Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were earlier Members of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service and after their selection as Judicial Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata (Tribunal for short), they took voluntary retirement from their earlier service and joined the Tribunal on 1.9.94 and 2.10.94 respectively. It may be pointed out that as per relevant Rules a person has to take retirement from his earlier service in order to join the Tribunal as a Judicial Member or Technical Member.Similarly applicant Nos. 3 and 4 were working as FA&CAO in the Eastern Rly. and S.E. Rly. respectively and they joined the Tribunal, Calcutta as Technical Member on 30.11.94 and 25.1.95. Thus all the applicants joined th...
Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Nalco Chemicals (India) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)280ITR96(Kol.)
1. In all these three appeals filed by the Revenue, common issue is involved. Therefore, these three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.2. In all these three appeals, the Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(Appeals) to allow deduction Under Section 80I which was denied by the A.O.3. The D.R. submitted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has wrongly come to the conclusion that in the present case, new industrial undertaking which will be entitled for deduction Under Section 80I, started in the assessment year 1990-91. According to the Ld. D.R., initial year of production of the industrial undertaking is the assessment year 1989-90 and not the assessment year 1990-91. The D.R. submitted that in this case the actual production has started in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90. The assessee has purchased from 1C1 (India) Ltd. a plant which was installed at Rishra. This plant was manufacturing water...
H.P. Bhattacharjee Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Employees' Co-operat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN493
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging inter alia the propriety of the order dated 20th February, 2003 passed by the learned Co-operative Tribunal, West Bengal in Appeal No. 11 of 2003.2. By the order impugned the petitioner's application for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to why the nominee of the appellant, viz., Smt. Babuli Ghosh should not be admitted as a member of the society and further as to why a deed of conveyance should not be executed forthwith so as to facilitate enjoyment of the exemption from payment of the enhanced stamp-duty, was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal by holding, inter alia, that the said application is a misconceived one. The Appellate Tribunal held that if such a prayer is allowed at an interim stage, nothing will be left in the appeal to be adjudicated upon therein.3. The instant revisional application has been filed against su...
Kamala Bala Mustaphy Vs. Debabrata Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal82
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above application has been taken out for delay, if any, be condoned, and recalling of an order dated 28th February, 2005 passed by me on G.A. No. 1374 of 2000 arising out of Suit No. 222 of 1958. By my above order I with detailedreasons and judgment confirmed sale in favour of purchaser at price of Rs. nearly 12 lacs. The offer of the purchaser was accepted by the Court on earlier occasion at a sum of Rs. 9 lacs. The earlier application was heard in presence of the parties. The presentapplicant on 25th of February, 2005 appeared before this Court and made submission and the matter was again fixed on 28th of Feb-ruary for further hearing. On 28th ofFebruary, 2005 the applicant did not appear and the impugned order was passed by meconsidering the submission of the learned Counsel of all the parties. The present application has been taken out on two grounds, firstly the applicant was incapacitated from coming to Court for illness on 28th of February, 2...
Mr. Bibhas Chandra Paria Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)3CALLT490(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This writ petition has been moved challenging an office order dated July 07. 1999 issued by the Chairman, Ad hoc Committee, Midnapore District Primary School Council. The said office order has been annexed as P-1 to the writ petition which is quoted hereinbelow:As Sri Bibhas Chandra Paria, Head teacher, Eamunia Jangal Primary School, P.O. Dhanghara, Dist. Midnapur, under Contai-III Circle, drawing Rs. 1620/- as Basic Pay per month has involved himself in Contai P.S. Case No. 148/97 dated 19.5.97, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 354, 380, 427/506 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act, so, he is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect from his post as Head teacher, Bamunia Jangal Primary School.Sri Paria shall be paid 50% of his pay as on the date proceeding the date of suspension plus dearness allowance in full as on the date of suspension as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension subject to the condition that no payment shall be made unless the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hemraj Mahabir Prasad Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Cal)105,[2005]279ITR522(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal has been admitted on the following grounds :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in directing the AO to adopt the gross rent received by the assessee being lessor from the let out property for the purpose of computing income from house property in place of much higher rent fetched by the lessee by sub-letting the same property ?'Facts :2. Before we embark upon the exercise to answer this question, we may briefly refer to the facts of the case in the context whereof we are supposed to answer the same. The assessee is the owner of the house property since leased out by the assessee to M/s HMP Services Ltd. (HMPS) for a period of 21 years. In terms of the said agreement for lease the assessee was to receive rent @ Rs. 21,000 p.m. The assessee has also received an interest-free loan of Rs. 50 lakhs from the lessee for the period of continuation of the lease. The assessee declared its income from the said house pr...
Nirmal Kumar Kharkia and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT505(HC)
Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 482 of Cr. PC is aimed at quashing the proceeding in GR Case No. 1192/02 arising out of Sankrail P.S. Case No. 129/02 dated 23.7.02 under Section 39(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act now pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Howrah.2. Mr. Dilip Dutta, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners with Mr. Arup Chatterjee and Mr. A. Sinha submitted that the petitioners are owners of land and shed measuring about 7450 sq.ft. situated at Andul Road and they leased out the said shed, i.e. godown to Bijoy Bahadur Pande who is now running M/s. Krishna Chemicals over the said land. M/s. Krishna Chemicals is a consumer under the West Bengal State Electricity Board (WBSEB). M/s. Ashoka Roller Flour Mill is another occupation of the land owned by the petitioner and the said proprietorship concern having its office at 125, Cotton Street, Calcutta is owned by one S.R. Jha. On 1...
Utpal Mitra Vs. the Chief Executive Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal74
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the 5th respondent was permitted by the authorities to submit his tender papers on February 21, 2005, when in terms of the notice inviting tender dated January 18, 2005 last date of receiving tender papers had been fixed for February 18, 2005 (up to 3 p.m.).2. Advocate for the petitioner says that once the schedule of the tender process had been duly prescribed and notified, the authorities were not empowered or entitled to permit the 5th respondent to submit his tender papers after the date for submitting them expired. He says that explanations given by the authorities in their opposition are not acceptable at all, and they rather show that the authorities acted mala fide for permitting the 5th respondent to submit the tender papers after the date fixed for the purpose was over.3. Advocate for the authorities refers me to the case made out in the opposition. It has been stated in the opposition that on Februa...
Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN427,2006(197)ELT165(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this writ application the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 30th December, 1992 issued by the respondent No. 1, namely the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Midnapore Division, and all the proceedings initiated relating thereto and, further to approve the classification list on the basis of the goods are exempted from payment of any duty and to allow the petitioner Company to export the goods without payment of excise duty.2. The fact is very short and to iterate that the petitioner manufactured two decks and helidecks (hereinafter referred to as the said goods). The said goods are required for offshore drilling for oil. Central Excise Duty is leviable on the said goods under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner obtained order in the year 1984 from the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, respondent No. 5, for supply of the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »