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.
Chabi Rani Ghosh Vs. Cesc Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT309(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The writ petitioner questions the validity of Golabari P.S. Case No. 149 of 2005 dated June 22nd, 2005 initiated under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and also of the disconnection of supply effected by the respondents.2. Advocate for the petitioner says that alleging theft of electricity by the petitioner, as consumer within the meaning of the Electricity Act 2003, police authorities on the complaint of CESC authorities, wrongfully registered an FIR under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. He contends that since, in view of provisions of Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003, an offence committed under Section 135 thereof in a non-cognizable offence, police was not competent to register the FIR and make investigation.3. His further submission is that in view of Section 135(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, without obtaining a duly issued search warrant, police authorities or the authorised officer was not competent to search the premises, a...
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Poddar Projects L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN586,[2008]81SCL51(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Poddar Udyog Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Udyog') was holding the subject shares in the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Peerless'). Under a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by this Court on August 19, 1997 a part of the business division of Udyog was transferred to Poddar Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Projects') which included the subject shares. On September 3, 1999 Project sold the shares to the respondent No. 2, Vijaya Finance Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Vijaya'). Advocate for Vijaya lodged the shares with Peerless for registration oh November 12, 2001. On January 9, 2002, Peerless refused such rectification and intimated to the Advocate. On May 16, 2002 the shares were again lodged for registration on behalf of Project, the same was refused by Peerless on August 27, 2002. In none of those refusals Peerless assigned any reason in detail. Project and Vijaya both approached...
Md. Shafique Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT506(HC)
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the writ petitioner is alleged to have committed an act of misconduct in allowing some pilgrims to leave India for the purpose of Haj without depositing the requisite fund with the Haj Committee. The writ petitioner's case is that he acted bonafide and there was no malafide intention on his part. It is, however, true that the pilgrims were allowed to leave India without payment to the Haj Committee. There appears to have been a general complaint by the Central members staff working at the office of the State Haj Committee were interrogated and the Statements made by them were recorded in writing. The respondent authorities were of the view that the writ petitioner was guilty of misconduct and proposed to punish him. A show cause was issued to which the writ petitioner replied stating that he had acted bonafide and that there had been no financial loss to the Haj Committee. The respondents thereafter dismissed the ...
Sri Tribhanga Bihari Bhanja and ors. Vs. Sri Prahlad Chandra Tung and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)3CALLT415(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. A suit for partition being Title Suit No. 41 of 1963 brings about this Second Appeal. In the plaint the case which has been made out is in brief as follows:The properties described in Schedule-Ka to the plaint originally belonged to two brothers Bipin Saha and Babulal Saha in equal shares. Bipin had five sons namely Suchand, Jyoti, Gadai. Sadai and Goti. Out of the five, first two pre-deceased him without keeping any issue. 'Kha' Schedule property is a part and parcel of the properties mentioned in the Schedule-'Ka' to the plaint. On 02.11.1936 Bipin made a gift of the 'Kha' Schedule properties to Chhoto Indubala. Wife of Sadai and Kamalabala, wife of Goti through a registered deed of gift. The donees obtained possession of the properties from the donor. Later on they sold some of the properties to Baro Indubala, wife of Gadai. Thereafter, Chhoto Indubala and Kamalabala sold some of those properties to the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 and put them in possession. The rem...
Jiwanram Sheoduttrai Vs. Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)199CTR(Cal)98,[2006]279ITR512(Cal),[2005]148TAXMAN555(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J. 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 dated 3-5-1986 and 15-4-1988 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 assessment year 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 be at the c...
income Tax Officer Vs. Mr. Samiran Majumdar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)280ITR74(Kol.)
1. This appeal preferred by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 25.1.2005 for the asstt. year 2001-02 taking following grounds of appeal: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,70,628/- made on account of depreciation. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be reversed and that of the A.O. restored.2. The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that it was found by the Assessing Officer that in this year the assessee has claimed depreciation on colour Xerox machine @ 60% which is admissible on computer considering the Xerox machine as good as computer. He further submits that the assessee was asked to show cause as to why 25% of depreciation should not be allowed in stead of 60% claimed by the assessee. But the assessee has failed to file any explanation, therefore, the Assessing Officer has allowed 2...
Rekha Mondal @ Singh Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN595
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Case No. 8 of March, 1999 (Sessions Trial No. VI on May, 1999) on 18.08.1999.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 22.05.1996 after return to house at about 10.00 a.m. the de facto complainant (P.W. 1) did not find his wife Sandhya Das, daughter Mamani Das (P.W. 4), aged about 15 years and son Sujit Das (P.W. 8), aged about 10 years there and the house was under lock and key. He unsuccessfully searched for them and on 01.06.1996 he on 01.07.1996 on getting a message from Shantipur P.S. that police officers had come from Haryana with his son and daughter to Shantipur P.S., he along with local people went there, got back his son and daughter and came to learn from the police officers of Haryana that his wife was murdered on 15.06.1996 in Haryana and her dead body was thro...
Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal, T ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN642,[2005(107)FLR1161],(2006)ILLJ663Cal
Soumitra Pal, J.1. In the writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for several reliefs. The principal grievance of the Petitioner is that Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal by his order dated August 29, 2003 has transferred the dispute from the 5th Industrial Tribunal to the 8th Industrial Tribunal, in violation of the principles of natural justice since it was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and ignoring the fact that the 5th Industrial Tribunal is functioning. Reference is made to the order dated August 28, 2003 passed by the 5th Industrial Tribunal in another dispute to demonstrate the fact that the order was passed in complete non-application of mind. Thus, it is submitted that order and the consequential order should be quashed.2. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Management of M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. v. State ofBihar and Ors. reported in : (1990)IILLJ211SC .3. Learned advocate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›