Kolkata Court August 2005 Judgments

Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Chandrama Hard Coke Mfg. Co.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN468

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner did not ask for any direction to file affidavits to the stay petition and chose to rely on the averments in the writ petition in support of the contentions urged by him. This appeal from an interim order is treated on the day's list by consent of the parties, and both the appeal and the stay application are disposed of by the following judgment.2. On 6th April, 2005 a writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner M/s. Chandrama Hard Coke Manufacturing Company, a proprietary concern and its proprietor before this Hon'ble Court, inter alia, challenging the scheme for sale of coal in non core sector by way of e-auction.3. On 6th April itself, the learned Judge of the Writ Court, without calling for any affidavit, was, inter alia, pleased to pass an interim order to the following effect:Let there also be an interim order until further order to the ...

Nepal Chandra Banik Vs. Refiulla Tea and Industries (P) Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN630

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 26th November, 1986 passed by the Hon'ble First Court whereby the Hillinen Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said company) has been wound up.2. The appellant herein claiming himself to be the shareholder of the said company and has filed the appeal from the said order dated November 26, 1986.3. Appeal has been filed on the ground that the statutory notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was not served on the registered office of the company. As such the order of winding up is not sustainable in law and the impugned order should be set aside.4. It further appears that on 26th August, 1987 an application was filed by the appellant hereinbefore the Hon'ble First Court for recalling of the said winding up order and the order was stayed. Subsequent thereto the application was filed by the Rafiulla Tea & Industries (P) Ltd. (hereinafter refer...

Prakash Glass and Rubber Works and anr. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Wor ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(2)CHN555,2007(34)PTC267(Cal)

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal directs against an order of the Hon'ble First Court dated December 23, 2004 whereby on an application of the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) the Hon'ble First Court was pleased to grant, an order of injunction in favour of the respondent. The prayers made in the said application of the respondent are as follows:(a) An order of injunction restraining the respondent by themselves or through their agents, servants and/or assigns from in any way manufacturing marketing or selling any glass products or laminated or toughened glass under the impugned trade mark or trade name 'SAFEX FLOAT or using the mark 'SAFEX' or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the registered trade mark of the petitioner or suing the essential and/or salient feature of the petitioner's mark namely 'SAFEX' in respect of toughened and/or laminated glass.(b) An order of injunction restraining the re...

Rafiulla Tea and Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Hillmen's Tea and Trading Co. ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN804

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated December 15, 1997 whereby the Hon'ble First Court held that the order dated 7th February, 1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhubri, Assam is of no effect and the same was set aside. His Lordship was further pleased to appoint and directed the Official Liquidator as the Receiver over the tea garden to take symbolic possession of the tea garden and the appellant company was given liberty to run the business of the tea garden under the Official Liquidator. The appellant was directed to furnish accounts month by month. On 10th February, 1998, this appeal has been filed and was admitted from the said order.2. Facts of the case briefly are as follows;One Hillmen's Tea & Trading Co. Ltd. on 20th March, 1961 sold Maijonga Tea Estate (hereinafter referred to as the said tea garden) to one Sharma and in turn they sold the said tea estate to one Kamini Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. in 1975. Thereafter, Kamini Tea Co. Ltd. sold...

P.U. Foams Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial T ...

Court: Kolkata

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This application has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal dated February 17, 2004. By the said order of the Tribunal the petitioner's prayer for reopening the assessment has been rejected as being barred by limitation. The relevant facts of this case are discussed below.2. The petitioner, a private limited company, is a manufacturer of polythene foam and also is a seller of some other items. The petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and also West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. On January 8, 1993 the petitioner applied for eligibility certificate under Rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). On the basis of the said application the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, visited the factory of the petitioner and gave a report that the petitioner is a manufacturer of plastic foam and the same is a banned item for the p...

Sajid Mowjee Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Cal)558,[2005]279ITR467(Cal)

D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal relates to the asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1996-97. Only one Court fee has since been paid. But now Court fee in respect of each assessment year is payable. The appellant shall put in the balance Court fees for the two assessment years within a period of four weeks. In default, this appeal shall be treated as appeal only in respect of the asst. yr. 1993-94 and the appeal in respect of the other two asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 shall stand dismissed.2. We have passed an order yesterday on the question of payment of Court fees after which the hearing commenced and continued till today. Subject to the above order, we propose to dispose of the appeal in the manner hereafter.The questions :3. In this appeal we are called upon to answer the following two questions on which the appeal was admitted :'(a) Whether the respective sums shown as salary in the return for the asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1996-97 shall be treated as income assessable under Section ...

Md. Abdul Mannan Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(4)CHN60

Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This writ petition has been moved challenging an office order dated March 31, 2005 issued by the Secretary, Malda District Primary School Council. The said office order has been annexed as P-2 to the writ petition which is quoted hereinbelow:'Whereas it has been reported by the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Pandua Circle vide memo No. 08 dated 04.02.2005 that Mr. Abdul Mannan, H. T. of Ramnagar Primary School under Pandua Circle, P.O. Bairgachi, district Maldah was arrested on 03.11.2004 in connection with Gazole P. S. Case No. 217/2004, dated 28.10.2004, under Sections 341/323/325/34 IPC and forwarded to S.D.M., Malda Court.Whereas his detention in police custody has exceeded more than 48 hours.Now, therefore, the undersigned places him under suspension in terms of Rule 7(2) as notification No. 906-SE(Pry), dated 09.7.2001 with effect from 03.11.2004 until further orders.All concerned are being informed.'2. Office order appears to be deemed suspension order in terms...

Jitu Sk., Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(1)CHN337

Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. In a case of rape with murder, Munsi Abdul Kasem @ Paltu, Jitu Sk., Jhantu Sk. and Mansoor Barajee were convicted both under Section 376(g) and Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and all of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each both under Section 376(g) and under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Murshidabad in connection, with Sessions Trial No. 1st May, ,2003 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 231 of 2002.2. Jitu Sk., Jhantu Sk., and Mansoor Barajee preferred Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2003 from jail while Munsi Abdul Kasem @ Paltu preferred Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2004 from jail and since both the appeals are directed against a common judgment, we have taken both the appeals together for hearing and disposal.3. The fact of the prosecution case in brief was that on 20th October, 2001 daughter of Khodeja Bibi of village Patikabari under P. S. Nawd...

Hindustan Club Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2005]64SCL65(Cal)

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This application arising out of an order dated 29-4-2005 (See Pawan Jain v. Hindustan Club Ltd. [2005] 5 Comp. LJ 1/62 SCL 210 (Cal.)) whereby His Lordship was pleased to direct the appellant to hold annual general meeting (hereinafter referred to as AGM) under the supervision of a special officer and further to hold AGM of the Club in accordance with the rules of Hindustan Club (hereinafter referred to as the said Club).2. Facts of the case briefly are as follows:2.1 On 9-11-2004 a notice was issued by the said Club for convening the AGM to be held on 18-12-2004 to transact the following business:(i) To receive, consider and adopt the audited balance sheet as on 31-3-2004;(ii) To appoint auditors for the year 2004-05 and fix their remuneration;(iii) Election and balloting;(iv) To announce the results of the election of the office bearers and committee members.3. The said notice was issued by Hon'ble Secretary on behalf of and under the authority of the Execu...

Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Cal)98,[2005]279ITR512(Cal)

D.K. Seth, J.1. The question :The question involved in this appeal is :'Whether, on a true and proper construction of the contract with the Indian Railways and their letters dt. 3rd May, 1986, and 15th April, 1988, the appellant is entitled to deduction in respect of the demand of Rs. 46,82,142 made by the Indian Railways during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1987-88 and the purported findings of the Tribunal that the liability had not crystallized and rejecting the said claim are based on any material and or even arrived at by ignoring the relevant materials and or by taking into consideration irrelevant and or extraneous materials and or are otherwise arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse.'The facts :2. In order to appreciate the situation, we may briefly refer to the facts. The assessee had entered into a contract with the Railways for supplying certain materials. The contract contained a condition that in case of rejection of the material supplied, the replacement would...