Kolkata Court January 2007 Judgments

The Statesman Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)112TTJ(Kol.)593

1. The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-VII, Kolkata dated 23.08.2006 for the assessment year 2003-04 on the following grounds: (1) That the ld. CIT(A)-VII, Kolkata erred in arbitrarily confirming the inclusion and assessment of Rs. 14,49,14,951/-, as alleged short term capital gains arising to the appellant company on sale of 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, & 7^th floors of Wing 'A' of the premises, being land & building situate at B-148, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, in terms of four separate and distinct agreements for sale, all executed on 22^nd October, 2001 in favour of M/s. Prity Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Nahid Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Bist Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Sagari Secfin Pvt. Ltd. respectively. (2) That the ld. CIT(A)-VII, Kolkata erred in arbitrarily alleging and/or holding that it was impossible to bifurcate the aggregate sale consideration of Rs. 16,99,85,636/- received by the appellant company in respect of the aggregate area of 1656.79 ...

Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal and anr. Vs. Gurupada ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN497

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, A.C.J.1. This writ application under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a respondent in an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against order dated August 30, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, thereby allowing an application for amendment of the original application under Section 19 of the Act.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present writ-application may be summed up thus:a) The respondent No. 1, a member of West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) filed an application under Section 19 of the Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, thereby praying for the following relief:1) A direction upon the respondent authorities to review the selection process de novo for filling up the promotional vacancies in IAS for the year 2003 and 2004 upon the determination of inter se seniority of the off...

Calcutta Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and ...

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Actg. C.J.1. These two matters have been assigned to me by the ten Hon'ble Chif Jusstice on the difference of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges of this Court (Banerjee, J. and Tapan Kumar Mukherjee. J.) while deciding two mandamus-appeals preferred against a common order dated 31st October, 2006 pased by Dilip Kumar Seth, J. while hearing two writ-application analogously, one filed by the Calcutta Soft-Drinks Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called Coca-Cola) and the other, by the Pepsico India Holding Limited (henceforth described as Pepsi) by which His Lordship dismissed both the writ-applications.2. The Coca-Cola, one of the appellants before us, filed a writ-application before the learned single Judge being W.P. No. 1914 of 2000 thereby praying for a declaration that no advertisement-tax is payable in respect of any board or glow-sign erected by it at the request of its dealers, distributors or retailers on a place from which those persons carry on business of selling ...

Bharitia Traders Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Uco Bank and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2007Cal105,I(2008)BC462

ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The lour petitioners have taken out this writ petition for various re-liefs, though their principal grievance is that possession of Flats 9D and 8B at premises No. 25B, Camas Street. Kolkata-700 016 was obtained by the Bank forcibly and without following the due process of law, that is, without following the process mentioned in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2002. Section 14. and hence a mandamus should be issued commanding restoration of possession.2. The first petitioner owed the Bank around rupees three crore. Alleging that it was not liquidating the debt, the Bank issued notice Under Section 13(2) dated August 3rd, 2005. In response the first petitioner submitted representation dated September 14th, 2005. Disposing of the representation the Bank sent its reply dated September 28th, 2005. Thereupon the bank issued a notice dated May 25th, 2006 under Section 13(4) of the Act. On the ...

Northern Properties Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Kedarnath Fatehpuria and or ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(4)CHN105

Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee, J.1. This revisional application as per Article 227 of Constitution of India is at the instance of defendants and is directed against Order No. 67 dated 9.12.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore, in connection with Title Suit No. 28 of 1997.2. The said suit was brought by the present opposite parties against the present petitioners.3. The fact leading to the filing of the said suit may be summed up thus:(i) That the present opposite parties filed a suit praying for declaration that the opposite parties became the absolute owners of the suit properties by way of adverse possession and also prayed for declaration that the lease deed dated 22.8.1973 is void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The opposite parties also prayed for declaration that the ex parte eviction decree dated 11.9.1975 passed in connection with T.S. No. 144 of 1974 is void. Other consequential reliefs including perpetual injunction etc. were prayed for in...

Kumar Kumar and Brothers and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Cal)213

Soumitra Pal, J.1. In the writ petition the petitioners have challenged the action of the Revenue in transferring the file from Kolkata to Mumbai which they learnt from the order dated October 11, 2006, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-22, Mumbai, calling for filing of return under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05. The grounds of challenge are that such transfer was carried out without inviting objection and without giving them an opportunity of hearing. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied on the judgment in Nitin Developers and Const v. CIT reported in : [2006]284ITR605(Delhi) in support of his submissions.2. The matter was moved on November 27, 2006, when directions for affidavits were issued. The matter came up on January 15, 2007. Thereafter, it appeared on January 17, 2007. Since no affidavit was filed, the Revenue was directed to produce ...

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. the Calcutta High Court Legal Serv ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)2CALLT412(HC)

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The Insurance company has taken out this writ petition dated March 20th, 2006 questioning the ex parte award dated January 21st, 2006 made by the Lok Adalat organised by the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.2. The award is set out herein below:Appearance has been made on behalf of the petitioner. None appears for the respondent on this occasion also though notices were properly served on them. It was indicated on last occasion (3.9.05) that as the insurance company did not pay any heed to the prayers made on behalf of the petitioner and also the direction given by the respondent the claim would be presumed to have been admitted by the respondent. In view of the aforesaid position we are inclined to pass an award for Rs. 15,33,786/- as indicated in the annexure to the claim petition. The respondent is to pay all the aforesaid amount covered in this award within three weeks. If the payment is not made as indicated the petitioner would be at liberty ...

Samar Roy Vs. Smt. Purnima Shaw and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT243(HC)

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Challenging the Judgment and order dated 9th March, 2004 passed by the learned Judge 12th Bench City CM Court at Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No. 57 of 2003 affirming the Judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2003 passed by learned Judge,, 3rd Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Misc. Cage, No 229 of 2000, this Second Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred by he appellant who was the applicant of an application under Order 2l Rule 101 of, the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a declaration that decree of eviction passed in Ejectment Suit No. 332 of 1992 being an ex parte decree, was bad in law and not enforceable against him and the Ejectment Execution Case No. 47 of 1995 arose out of the said decree was not at all enforceable on the ground that prior to filing of the eviction suit by the plaintiff of the suit, the tenant Vidyadhar Rath surrendered his tenancy right on 15th June, 1991 to one of the co-owner landlord of the suit premise, namely, Murati Shaw who subs...

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)2CALLT177(HC)

Tapen Sen, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 14.3.2002 passed by the 9th Industrial Tribunal at Durgapur in Reference Case No. X-41/2000 whereby and whereunder he was pleased to answer the reference in favour of the concerned workman by observing that the said concerned workman namely, the Respondent No. 3 would be entitled to increment at the rate of Rs. 32/- in the Senior Operative Grade while under the training period together with all arrears till date. The case of the Union which espoused the cause of the Respondent No. 3, was that prior to joining as a Senior Operative Trainee (hereinafter referred to as SOT), he was in the SK II Grade with basic pay at Rs. 710/- and annual increment @ of Rs. 20. It was the case of the Union that during the training period, the Petitioner was kept in the scale of SK - II Grade with the same annual increment while some of batch mates, were given basic pay and increment in the scale of Operative Grade - III from the very d...

In Re: Ram Mohta; in Re: the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: IV(2007)BC257,(2007)2CALLT310(HC),[2007]138CompCas66(Cal),(2007)3CompLJ331(Cal)

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. A former member has sought winding up of the stock exchange company for its alleged inability to refund his security deposit.2. The principal claim is for Rs. 10,50,000/-. According to the petitioner Rs. 3 lakh had been furnished by way of fixed deposit, Rs. 2.5 lakh had been deposited in the settlement guarantee fund and Rs. 5 lakh had been provided as interest free security amount. The petitioner has relied on the stock exchange's written confirmation that the petitioner had ceased to be a member with effect from June 9, 2000. Upon cessation of membership, the petitioner claims, the entirety of the security deposit, in various forms, ought to have been returned and the failure on the part of the stock exchange to refund the deposit amounts to inability to pay.3. The petitioner has also relied on a letter of August 28, 2001 issued by the stock exchange in response to the petitioner's demand for refund of the deposit, to substantiate his claim that a sum of Rs. 2....