Kolkata Court July 2006 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.
Sri AtIn Kundu Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Smt. Krishna Chattopadhyay and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)3CALLT626(HC)
Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. This instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated 25.04.06 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 99 of 2005 whereby the order of injunction dated 11.08.05 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hooghly in Title Suit No. 40 of 2005 was set aside.2. As indicated in the record, the petitioners entered into an agreement with opposite party No. 1 for purchasing a cinema hall called Rama Talkis at a consideration of Rs. 4,50,000. The agreement for sale was executed on 15.09.90. It was followed by delivery of possession of the cinema hall with all its fixtures and furnitures in favour of the petitioners. The owner of the cinema hall received Rs. 1,90,000 on the date of agreement as earnest money. The petitioners claimed having paid the balance amount by instalments, whereas the opposite party No. 1 denied paying received the entire balance amount. Alleging that the opposite pa...
Central Group Vs. Unit Construction Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN574
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing steins from an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order being No. 26 dated 28.04.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court, Alipore in T.S. 364/99.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of office accommodation space measuring 1192 sqft. on the second floor in the southern portion of the building commonly known as Unit House situated at 23A/49, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-700 053 being recorded as municipal premises No. P-40, Block-B, New Alipore, Kolkata within P.S. New Alipore. At the time of induction, the defendant/petitioner happened to be a partnership firm which was subsequently converted into a sole proprietorship business of Mr. Subir Basu and the same was intimated by the petitioner to the plaintiff/ O.P. A suit for ejectment being T.S. 1/1999 was filed by the plaintiff/ O.P. aga...
Bhabani Shankar Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: II(2007)BC81,2006(4)CHN724
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Amit Bhattacherjee, the Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. None appear on behalf of the opposite parties. Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept in record.2. The instant criminal revisional application is directed against an order dated March 17, 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Third Court, Calcutta, in connection with the Case No. C/3416 of 2002 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the petitioner's prayer for discharge from the said case.3. Mr. Bhattacherjee appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to paragraphs 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the petition of complaint being Annexure A to this application and submitted that although the demand notice was served upon the petitioner on October 27, 2001, but the case was filed in Court on August 13, 2002 long after expiry of the period as provided in the said Act. According to Mr. Bhattacherjee, in view of such adm...
Mackintosh Burn Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN115
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.1. This appeal involves an interesting question that when the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been rejected with the observation that such rejection will not prevent the said respondents to approach the Appellate Tribunal within ten days from the date of rejection, then whether such a leave and liberty to the said respondents to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal would thereby condone the delay, if any, in preferring such appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, if preferred within the said period of ten days. The facts giving rise to the present question may briefly be stated as follows:In a dispute between the appellant/company and the respondents No. 4 & 5 which are the Co-operative Spinning Mill and its Managing Director, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in exercise of its power under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter called as the said Act) passed an award...
Hazra Medical Stores Private Ltd. Vs. Biswanath Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2006
Reported in: 1(2007)CLT656
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above application has been taken out by notice of Motion by the defendants No. 1 to 9 for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and leave granted under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and further to hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for adjudication since it is a suit for land. Upon reading of the petition being the grounds of the Motion it appears to me that this demurer action has been taken for rejection of the plaint on the ground that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and further this is a suit for land. Mr. Haradhan Bandyopadhyay, appearing for the defendants/applicants, at the time of the argument has conceded to the proposition of law that this Court can entertain a suit for enforcement of specific performance of agreement for sale of the immovable property simpliciter but no relief for possession of the, immovable property can be granted in the ...
Joint Commissioner of Vs. Peerless Developers Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)103ITD349Cal
1. The Hon'ble President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal vide, order dated 8-1-2004 has constituted this Special Bench for deciding the following question: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee engaged in the real estate business and following project completion method, is justified in claiming project expenditure on accrual basis in the year of incurring, when income is reflected only in the year of completion of the project.Subsequently by order dated 21-4-2006 amending the earlier order, the entire appeal was referred to the Special Bench for consideration and disposal by the Special Bench.2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer while making the assessment disallowed deduction of Rs. 69,84,089 claimed by the assessee in respect of overhead expenses of Sodepur and Brahmaputra Projects. While doing so, he observed that the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and any expenditure incurred has to be included in the cos...
Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Peerless Developers Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)287ITR153(Kol.)
1. The Hon'ble President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 8^th January, 2004 has constituted this Special Bench for deciding the following question: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee engaged in the real estate business and following project completion method, is justified in claiming project expenditure on accrual basis in the year of incurring, when income is reflected only in the year of completion of the project.Subsequently by order dated 21^st April, 2006 amending the earlier order, the entire appeal was referred to the Special Bench for consideration and disposal by the Special Bench.2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer while making the assessment disallowed deduction of Rs. 69,84,089/- claimed by the assessee in respect of overhead expenses of Sodepur and Brahmaputra Projects. While doing so, he observed that the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and any expenditure incurred has to be ...
Shankar Traders Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Cal335,2007(1)ARBLR10(Cal)
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for appointment of an arbitrator. There was a contract between the petitioners herein and the Union of India, represented by Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination), Eastern Railway Sealdah. The petitioner company Was awarded a contract of lifting of track from km 5/25 to km 8/21 all four lines, and PQS station limit for provision of ballast cushion with other ancillary works at a cost of Rs. 12,33,968/- This contract was awarded to the petitioner company vide letter dated 14th April, 2004. The work was to be completed within four months from the date of issue of the contract. In pursuance of this offer an agreement was executed on 13th September, 2004. It seems that the petitioner company's claim is that due to default and breaches on the part of the respondents the execution of the work was prolonged and the extensions were also granted by the r...
Asit Pattanayak Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1514,AIR2007Cal143
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties.2. Assailing the judgment and order dated 28th November, 2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Alipore in M.A.C. Case No. 420 of 2000, this appeal has been preferred by the claimant of the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claimant suffered 75% disablement due to the accident while he was returning back in a Mini Truck, which collided with another truck. Though loss of income was determined as Rs. 2500/- per month, but considering such travel of the claimant in the Mini Truck concerned as a gratuitous passenger, learned Tribunal below exempted the Insurance Company from their liabilities to satisfy the award as passed by applying Section 147(1) Clause (b)(i) of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thereby liability was fixed upon owners of both the two trucks, namely, Mini Truck and Truck in question. Such adjudication is under challenge in t...
Hotel Hindustan International Employee's and Workers' Union Vs. State ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN188
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. Applicability of Chapter IIIA of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 to Hotel Hindusthan International is the only question before this Court in this writ petition.2. The Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal took up the said issue for his consideration in compliance with an order passed by the Hon'ble Appeal Court on 6th April, 2005 in MAT No. 4241 of 2004. By the said order, a direction was given to the Registrar to the effect that if an application is made by the appellant therein, viz., Hotel Hindusthan International Karmachari Union under Section 28A of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, such application shall be decided in accordance with law by treating the hotel as 'industry'.3. An application under Section 28A of the said Act seeking recognition of Hotel Hindusthan International Karmachari Union, the respondent No. 4 herein, as sole bargaining agent was submitted by the said respondent to the Registrar of Trade Unions, West Bengal.4. On receipt of the said applic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »