Kolkata Court July 2006 Judgments
Smt. Sita Devi Haralalka Vs. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: (2007)1CALLT107(HC)
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The present suit for eviction, realization of rents and taxes to the tune of Rs. 1,03,962/-, mesne profits and other reliefs was instituted by the plaintiff Sita Devi Haralalka, since deceased and substituted by her husband and three sons being her heirs and legal representatives, on the grounds of default and reasonable requirement for own use and occupation.2. A thumbnail sketch of the plaintiffs case is that she is the owner of flat No. 1C on the first floor of Russel Apartment at 12B, Russel Street, Calcutta- 16, and the defendant company was a tenant in respect of the same at a rental of Rs. 2000/- including service charges of Rs. 500/- plus Rs. 250/- as occupier's share of corporation taxes, payable according to English calendar month till April, 1979. Upon grant of a superior lease/ tenancy by her in favour of her daughter-in-law Smt. Sangeeta Haralalka for a period of two years three months i.e. from May 1979 till August 1981, the defendant paid re...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Soft Drinks Private Limited Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN17
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Is the advertisement displayed on a shop selling, inter alia, Coca-Cola or Pepsi exempted from the Municipal Tax in terms of Section 204 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1980')?2. This is the moot question which is required to be answered by us in this appeal. The question was answered in the negative by the learned Single Judge when he was approached by this soft drinks companies challenging the demand of the Corporation. Hence, this appeal.3. Section 204 of the said Act of 1980 is quoted below:204. Tax on advertisements.--(1) Every person, who erects, exhibits, fixes or retains upon or over any land, building, wall, hoarding, frame, post, kiosk or structure any advertisement or, displays any advertisement to public view in any manner whatsoever, visible from a public street or public place (including any advertisement exhibited by means of cinematograph) shall pay for every advertisement which is s...
Tag this Judgment!Jayshree Tea and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN45,(2006)205CTR(Cal)370,[2006]285ITR506(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.Facts and controversy:1. Altogether four writ petitions were filed calling in question the provision of Section 115-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1961'). The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single judge by judgment and order dated September 20, 2001, reported in Jayshree Tea and Industries Ltd. v. Union of India : [2002]253ITR608(Cal) . Hence, these appeals. Since these appeals involve identical questions of facts and law these are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellants in the four appeals are four different tea companies who cultivate tea plants, pick green tea leaves and thereafter process them in their factory for marketing the same. Cultivation of tea is considered to be an agricultural process whereas processing of tea in the factory is an industrial process. Agricultural income is within the domain of the State and not the Union. Hence, the Union is not empowered to levy tax on agricu...
Tag this Judgment!Timir Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN693
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. Petitioner, Sri Timir Chowdhury, filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, assailing the Order dated 25th July, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Dristrict & Sessions Judge, 16th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in Criminal Motion No. 386 of 2005. By the said order, the learned Court dismissed the revisional application which was preferred challenging the order dated 21st May, 2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Complaint Case No. 3108 of 2005.2. Grievances of the petitioner, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows:The petitioner owns a fishing vessel namely, F.B. Bumba, which is registered under Section 9(1) of the West Bengal Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1973. He is a licence holder for zone (D) fishing and uses the vessel in order to carry out fishing and allied marine activities to earn a livelihood for his family.3. On 19th May, 2005, the opp...
Tag this Judgment!Mannesmann Rexroth (India) Limited Vs. National Engineering Industries ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN76,[2007]80SCL178(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of an applicant under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, and is directed against the order dated 4th September, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court thereby dismissing the application for winding up.2. The appellant before us filed an application before the Company Court under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 thereby praying for an order of winding up of the National Engineering Industries Limited, the respondent herein, on the allegation that by virtue of various agreements between the petitioning-creditor and the company, the former supplied goods on behalf of the latter for the modernisation of the Rourkela Steel Plant, the value of those aggregating to Rs. 10,35,30,147.07 but out of those amount, only a sum of Rs. 6,71,87,352/- was paid by the company thereby keeping a sum of Rs. 3,63,42,795.07 as due and payable. According to the petitioning-creditor, in spite of repeate...
Tag this Judgment!Binapani Dey and anr. Vs. Sankar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN199
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is a revisonal application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against judgment and order dated February 28, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah, District-South 24-Parganas in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 66 of 2004 affirming Order No. 18 dated October 4, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Sealdah, District-South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 101 of 2004.2. Both the Courts below passed temporary order of injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the suit property till the disposal of the suit.3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revisional application are as under:(a) Admittedly, the suit property belonged to Hussain Parsee alias Chowdhury.Hussain Parsee died intestate on December 15, 1950 leaving behind him his son, Hiralal Chowdhury, his widow, Somaria Chowdhury and his daughter Kamala Chowdhury. On his death his said heirs and legal re...
Tag this Judgment!New Red Bank Tea Company (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. S. Acharya, P.F. Enforc ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN865
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This revisional application has been filed praying for quashing of the proceeding being C.R. No. 103 of 2001 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.2. Case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a company and the petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the said company. The company is engaged in production of tea. It is covered as per provisions of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'said Act'). Due to various reasons like labour problem, loss of capital shortage of power and other factors, the company suffered huge loss and damages. Due to those reasons, which were beyond the control of the petitioners, they could not submit the return for the year 1999-2000 before the provident fund authorities in time. Said return was subsequently filed on 27.3.2001 and was accepted by the authority. The petitioner-company paid the full provident fund dues and other contribu...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Singh Vs. Agent Bengali Colliery (R), Eastern Coalfields Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN202
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.1. The petitioner files this writ application challenging the order of dismissal passed by the respondent authorities as communicated to him under Memo No. SAT/Per/GM/85/10990 dated 14th December, 1985.2. At the very outset Mr. R.N Majumder, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, raise a preliminary objection. According to Mr. Majumder, there is a provision under the rules to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. So the petitioner can not come before this Court straightaway by filing this writ application to challenge the impugned order of dismissal. Mr. Majumder relied upon the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh reported in : (1972)ILLJ180SC , and in Mohini v. General Manager, Syndicate Bank reported in H.C. Kant LLJ 351.3. Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this writ application is filed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Magma Leasing Ltd. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN602
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. Mr. Amit Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner and he files affidavit of service upon the opposite party/State. However, none appears on behalf of the O.P/State.2. In this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of Cr. PC the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.2.2006 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in case No. C/6269 of 2004 pursuant to a proceeding under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act observing that Section 145 of N.I Act to be read together with Section 200 of Cr. PC and, therefore, in spite of filing of affidavit by the complainant he directed that presence of the complainant was necessary for holding an enquiry and, therefore, he was pleased to fix 24th April, 2006 for enquiry. Against this order the present application has been preferred by the petitioner.3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that Section 145 of N.I Act overrides S...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Halder Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3966
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Prafulla Haider, Lakshman Haider and Biswanath Haider, all of village Garkhali under P. S. Falta in the district of 24-Parganas (South) faced Sessions Trial case No. 2(5) of 1994 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore under Section 302/34 of the IPC for murdering all the four male members of the family of de facto complainant, Ranjita Haider of village Garkhali. Lakshman Haider, however, escaped the trial by his death.2. Both Biswanath Haider and Prafulla Haider after conclusion of trial were convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months.3. Prafulla Haider and Biswanath Haider preferred Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2003 respectively, but, since nobody appeared on their behalf at the time of admission of those two appeals, both the appeals were dismissed for def...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »