Kolkata Court September 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.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Hon'Ble Justice Dilip Kr. Seth
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)98ITD241(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Id CIT(A)-XXXVII, Kolkata dated 31^st March, 2005 for the assessment year 1999-2000 on the following grounds of appeal : (i) That Id, CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts of the case by accepting reference to Court judgment as part of records for the purpose of Section 154 of the I. T. Act, 1961. (ii) That Id CIT(A) erred in law as well as in facts of the case by directing the A.O. to consider the rectification petition afresh in contradiction to provisions of Section 143(1) of the I.T. Act 1961.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000 the assessee received, on receipt basis, a sum of Rs. 3,36,5757- representing outstanding fees for professional services rendered by him during the period prior to his elevation to the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court Bench with effect from 19th December, 1994. The assessee included the above receipt in his return f...
Anandamoy Bhattacharjee Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: (2007)105ITD365(Kol.)
1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.03,2004 for the Asstt. year 1995-96.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and Ex Chief Justice of Hon'ble Calcutta and Bombay High Court. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that in the instant case, no return of income was filed by the assessee though he had income by way of salary and royalty for the impugned assessment year 1995-96. therefore, proceedings Under Section 147 of the I. T. Act was initiated by issuing notice Under Section 148 which was served on 07.02.2001 But the assessee did not file his return of income in response to notice Under Section 148. Consequently notice Under Section 142(1) was also issued but again there was no compliance. Thereafter a letter was issued to the assessee for furnishing the details as per requisition made Under Section 142(1) fixing the date for hearing on 20.03.2002. The Ld. Authorised Representa...
Aghani Rajowar and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN357
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, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 81 of 1989 (S.T. No. 16 of 95) on 20.04.2000.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that compromise in presence of villagers and Pradhan in respect of the dispute over land at Muchir Khal which took place in the last year between the de facto complainant's elder brother Lula Rajowar on the one hand and Sakari Rajowar and his three sons viz. Aghani Rajowar, Chaita Rajowar and Thula Rajowar on the other, was scheduled to be held at about 10.00 a.m. on 26.08.1986, but no settlement could be made.On the same date at about 5.30 a.m. when the said Lula was knitting a net on the road near Hari Temple at the three point junction of the locality, de facto complainant (P.W.I) was standing and Baneswar Rajowar (P.W. 2), Kesto Gope (P.W.3), Gopal Gope (P.W. 7), Sakari Rajowar and his three sons viz. Aghani, C...
indo Arya Central Transport Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN471
Soumitra Pal, J.1. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner company challenging an award dated 16th April, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of the workers. During the pendency of the writ petition an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') has been filed by the respondent No. 3, that is, the Carrier Transport Mazdoor and Employees Union. The prayer in the said application is as under:In the circumstances aforesaid, your petitioners/workmen, i.e., the respondent No. 3 herein pray that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the writ petitioner herein to pay the full wages, w.e.f 4.9.1999 to the workmen during the pendency of this writ proceeding and/or Your Lordships may pass such further order or orders as seem fit and proper. 2. Parties have exchanged affidavits. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing.3. Mr. Arunabha Ghosh, learned advocate on behalf of the company submitted tha...
Anil Kumar Mitra Vs. Sunil Kumar Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN411
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a caveator in the proceedings for grant of probate and is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 16, 2000 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C.Act)-cum-Additional District Judge, Burdwan in 0. S, Will Case No. 4 of 1991 thereby granting probate in favour of respondents.2. The respondents herein filed an application for grant of probate of the alleged last Will executed by one Chandi Prasanna Mitra, the father of the respondent No. 1 and the husband of the respondent No. 2.3. The said Chandi Prasanna Mitra died leaving widow, seven sons and five daughters of which three were married. By the Will, the estator excluded the eldest son and three married daughters from the legacy. In the Will the testator stated that the conduct of his eldest son, the appellant herein, towards him was not befitting that of a son and he was living separately elsewhere in the town of Burdwan. According to the terms of t...
Surajmal Baijnath Indus. P. Ltd. Vs. Pasupati Agro Chem Nepal P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT328(HC),2005(190)ELT161(Cal)
ORDERDilip Kumar Seth, J. The questions :1. In this appeal in course of hearing three points emerged. The first point that emerged was whether the absence of individual notice to the owner of the goods in terms of Section 61(3) of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 would affect the validity of the auction sale and passing of title to the goods to the auction purchaser. The second point that cropped up was whether the Port Trust could take steps for sale of the goods by auction in terms of Section 61 during the pendency of the application for waiver of demurrage charges made by the importer under Section 53 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The main argument was advanced on these two points, either in support or against the setting aside of the auction sale. The third point that emerged, in course of hearing the appeal, was with regard to the compliance of Section 61(2) affecting the validity of the auction itself.Facts :2. Before we attempt to answer the points raised we may briefly refer...
Krishna Mukherjee Vs. Narayan Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN6,2006CriLJ180
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a wife in a proceeding for divorce and is directed against the Order No. 45 dated 21st July, 1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 7 of 1993 thereby rejecting an application filed by the present appellant for lodging complaint against the husband in terms of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The husbands-respondent filed a matrimonial suit for divorce and the said suit was decreed ex parte. Subsequently, the wife filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said ex parte decree on the ground that no summons was served upon her and that the husband by suppressing the summons obtained the said ex parte decree on frivolous grounds.3. The said application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ultimately allowed by the learned Trial Judge and the ex parte decree, earlier passed...
Sahajaman Mia and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN209
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Four persons in all faced Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2000 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 95 of 1999 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat.2. Of the four persons, Sahajaman Mia faced the charge both under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC while Hafijuddin Mia and Mariam Bibi and Afajuddin faced the trial under Section 201/34 of the IPC.3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on conclusion of his trial found from the evidence that Sahajaman Mia , the husband of the victim lady was guilty of murder and that apart he was also guilty under Section 201 of the IPC. The learned Judge, however, exonerated Afajuddin Mia from the charge under Section 201/34 of the IPC but found both Hafijuddin Mia and Mariam Bibi guilty of the offence under Section 201/34 of the IPC. The learned Judge on such conclusion convicted Sahajaman Mia and other two appellants and recorded the order of sentence against all of them.4. Now the appellants...
Bimal Naskar Alias Bimal Krishna Naskar Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT291(HC),2006(2)CHN735
Debiprasad Sengupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.8.99 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South 24 Parganas, Alipore in S.T. No. 1(12)/ 98 (S.C. No. 41 (8) 98) thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. The appellant was also convicted under Section 201 IPC and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.2. Prosecution case, in short, was that victim Saraswati Sardar was invited by present appellant Bimal Naskar of the same village on 24.10.88. At about 8 P.M. the victim went to the house of accused, but she was not offered meal as the son of the accused Bimal did not return till that time. So the victim came back to her house and again she went to the house of the accused at about 11.00 P.M. to attend the invitation on the occasion of Lakshmi Puja, but in that very night she did not ret...
Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT484(HC),[2005(107)FLR1162],(2006)1LLJ574Cal
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.The Question:1. A very interesting question has been raised by Mr. Partha Bhanja Chowdhury with regard to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to hear preliminary issue going to the root of the jurisdiction at the outset or to decide such issues along with the merit as a rule.The Appellant : The argument:2, In order to support his contention, Mr. Bhanja Chowdhury points out that the learned Tribunal has followed the decision in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors. : (1983)IILLJ425SC , but he submits that the decision in D.P. Maheshwari (supra) has overlooked the decision in Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Their Workers and Staff and Ors. : (1962)IILLJ227SC . He also points out that the decision in Hussain Mithu Mhasvadkar v. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board : (2001)IILLJ1520SC also supports his contention, which has again directed hearing of the preliminary issue at the outset. He also refers to Rule 20H of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »