Kolkata Court August 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.
Subhas Chandra Dutta Vs. Sudha Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN85
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. This is a criminal revision against an order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Katwa, refusing to file a complaint under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party Nos. 1 to 7 for alleged disobedience of an order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allegedly disobeyed, is quoted hereunder:From the petitions, submission of learned Advocate and order of Hon'ble High Court it appears that the petitioner is apprehending breach of peace and tranquillity over the possession of the disputed plot. Learned Advocate for opposite party also claims possession of the disputed plot. Claims and counter claims over possession of the disputed plot may lead to breach of peace and tranquillity.Hence, ordered that the opposite parties are not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner as determined by the B.L. & L.R.O., Man...
Jaymac Lasetron P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Cal)532,[2006]286ITR453(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Both these appeals involve a common question of law. However, the facts in both these appeals are singular in their respective characteristics. Applicability of Section 281 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as well as Rule 11 of the Second Schedule was called in question in these two appeals.Facts of the case:Jaymac2. Jaymac India P. Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Jaymac India'), had assessed dues on account of income-tax for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. Jaymac India entered into an agreement for lease with Orient Beverages Limited on llth floor of the premises No. 50, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, against a premium of Rs. 9,49,680. Before the formal deed of lease could be executed in favour of Jaymac India by Orient Beverages Limited, Jaymac India assigned its right in favour of Jay-mac Lasetron P. Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Jaymac Lasetron') by an agreement dated September 20, 1984, in consideration of the like amount being Rs...
Tijiya Steel Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-2006
Reported in: (2007)2CALLT358(HC)
Indira Banerjee, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged an order No. 5-500/Kol/2000 dated 19th April, 2006 of the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, refusing to waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the disputed duty of Rs. 3,10,188/-, but instead, directing the appellant company to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- within eight weeks from the date of the said order.2. The petitioner company is engaged it, manufacture inter alia of Mild Steel Ingots, which are excisable goods, at its factory at Howrah.3. During the period from 1st September, 1997 to 31st March, 2000, the petitioner had paid Central Excise Duty on Mild Steel Ingots under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.4. On 30th March, 2000, the Compounded Levy Scheme under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act was withdrawn. Thereafter, with effect from 1st April, 2000 the company started paying duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 at the ad valorem rate of duty specified in the C...
Arindam Basu and ors. Vs. Amal Kumar Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Cal295,2006(4)CHN813
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the private respondents in a writ application and is directed against the order dated 20th June, 2003 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court thereby allowing the writ application by directing the Police Authority to recover a vehicle from the custody of the private respondents after making an inventory of the same and to hand over the vehicle to the writ petitioner who was previously in possession of the same by virtue of a hire-purchase agreement with the private-respondents. His Lordship further ordered that the writ petitioner would run the vehicle under his exclusive control and would keep the same in a running condition until the entire payment is made to the HSBC Bank Limited, the private respondent, under the agreement. His Lordship had, however, not decided the validity of hire-purchase agreement or the actual amount of outstanding dues payable by the writ petitioner in this writ petition and observed...
Maitry Banerjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN507
Tapen Sen, J.1. The petitioner prays for compassionate appointment. Her husband, late Kalyan Nath Banerjee, while working and being attached to the H.T.X.R. Section of the Chief Mechanical Engineer's Department under the Kolkata Port Trust, died-in-harness on 05.11.92. On 01.12.92, by Annexures P-2, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Pursuant to the said application, the Junior Assistant Secretary - II in the Administration Department of the said Port Trust, vide Annexure P/3, sent a letter asking the petitioner to appear in a written test which was scheduled to be held on 24.9.95 at 10:00 a.m.2. According to the petitioner, and as has been stated in paragraph 5, she was selected for compassionate appointment (List 'C') vide serial No. 13 in the year 1996. However no supportive document(s) in support of such a contention has/have been brought on record save and except a mere bald statement.3. It is her further case that she did not get any information thereafter and ...
Ranjan Chatterjee (Deceased by Lrs) Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Cal18
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This application dated May 10th, 2006 has been taken out by the petitioner in PLA No. 27 of 2006. He prays for an order discharging the caveat in terms of provisions In Rule 27 of Chapter 35 of the Original Side Rules of this Court.2. The ground on which lie wants discharge of the caveat is that in the affidavit in support of his caveat the caveator did not state his right and interest, and the grounds of objection to the application for probate. Counsel submits that a reading of the affidavit will show that the caveator failed to comply with the requirements of provisions in Rule 253. During pendency of this application the caveator took out in application (G.A. No. 1813 of 2006) for leave to file a supplementary affidavit. By my order made today I have allowed that application. In the supplementary affidavit the caveator has stated his right and interest, and the grounds of objection to the application for probate.The order made in G.A. No. 1813 of 200...
Ranjan Chatterjee (Deceased) and Sri Biswanath Chatterjee Vs. Sri Dine ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-2006
Reported in: (2007)1CALLT243(HC)
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This application dated May 15th, 2006 has been taken out by the caveator (Dinesh Kumar Sharma) in connection with the application for probate filed in this Court by one Biswanath Chatterjee as petitioner. He prayed for probate of a Will dated April 21st, 1999 stated to have been executed by one Ranjan Chatterjee who died on April 12th, 2005. He is contesting this application of the caveator without filing any opposition.2. Special citation was issued, and it was served on the caveator on March 10th, 2006. He lodged the caveat on March 16th, 2006. According to provisions in Rule 25 of Chapter 35 of the Original Side rules of this Court, he was to file the affidavit in support of his caveat within eight days from March 16th, 2006, i.e. within March 24th, 2006. He filed the affidavit on March 24th, 2006. Now he wants an order permitting him to file a Supplementary affidavit in support of his caveat.3. His case is that advocate conducting the case, because o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›