Kolkata Court March 2007 Judgments

C.C. Sahoo Sons (Construction) Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court: DRAT Kolkata

Reported in: I(2008)BC27

1. This one is only a transfer application by the petitioner-debtors praying for withdrawal of Original Application No. 44 of 2002 that entails a very large amount of money to the tune of Rs. 1,43,91,840.25.2. The said Original Application No. 44 of 2002 pending for disposal before Mr. Thyagaraja Naidu, Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Cuttack.3. The prayer of the petitioners is to render substantial justice to the parties by withdrawing the said Original Application No. 44 of 2002 from the said Presiding Officer of the D.R.T., Cuttack and transfer the same to any other Tribunal convenient to all the parties.4. It appears, the main reasons attributed by the petitioners are "bias" on the part of the Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. in passing certain orders in the course of the proceeding and denial of natural justice to the petitioners.5. Some of the facts/orders highlighted in the course of submission made on behalf of the petitioners by the learned Advocate to complain of 'bias' on the par...

Til Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23-11-2006 passed for the assessment year 2003-04 in the case of the assessee.2. The assessee has raised the following issues in its grounds of appeal: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in having upheld the disallowance of whole of the dealership/agency commission of Rs. 190.99 lakhs paid to Md. Al Samarie of Baghdad, Iraq as inadmissible under Section 40(a)(i) on tne alleged ground that there was absence of three basic parameters justifying payment of this amount for business. (2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not dispute the genuineness of the expenditure but disallowed the same merely on the basis of extraneous report of assessee's name being appeared in a report, the contents of which were not disclosed to it or explained its relevance for such ...

Bibek Raychaudhuri and ors. Vs. Virama Enterprises Private Limited

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(2)CHN660

S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The petitioners by filing an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code sought to quash the proceedings of Case No. C-6736 of 2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:Mr. Amal Kumar Sanyal, as the authorised representative of M/s. Virama Enterprises Private Limited, lodged a complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the petitioners. The said complaint was registered as Case No. C-6736 of 2003. It was alleged in the said complaint that a cheque bearing No. 133968 dated 30.9.2003 was drawn on United Bank of India, Calcutta Branch for an amount of Rs. 15,12,000/- in favour of the opposite party/company against the dues. The O.P. through its Advocate by letter dated 16.10.2003 requested the petitioners to make payment of the aforesaid amount but no payment...

Abdul Salam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN519

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The writ petitioner, now in review, desires a second, and bigger, bite of the cherry. Matters urged in course of the writ proceedings, or those that ought to have been urged then, or those that are claimed to have been urged but were not noticed, have been sought to be agitated afresh.2. The petitioner, a policeman who has been disciplined for his absence without justifiable cause, seeks to reopen the writ petition on three counts, though the merits of the entire matter have been put forth. It is suggested that the order under review did not notice the three major grounds taken in challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal: that the chargesheet issued was vague in that it indicated the beginning of the period of absence but did not disclose the end date; that the notice issued by disciplinary-authority required the petitioner only to deal with the quantum of punishment proposed to be inflicted on him and not the report of the Inquiry Officer; and...

Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and anr. Vs. P.G. Modak and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2007Cal126,(2007)3CALLT211(HC),2007(216)ELT517(Cal)

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The respondent No. 1, P.G. Modak & Sons, was a partnership firm carrying on business of clearing and forwarding Agents under the license granted by the Appellant No. 1. The license was issued under Bye law No. 55A. Section 56 and 58 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1963) deal with the mode of realisation of charges short levied or erroneously refunded or quoted.2. Between April 1988 and July 1988 the respondent No. 1 cleared goods belonging to various importers and exporters from the port of Haldia upon payment of Port charges so levied upon them. The Port Trust, however, at the time of levying such port charges erroneously gave credit for 14 days free period whereas the consignees were entitled to 7 days free period. The Port Trust raised supplementary bills upon the respondent No. 1 at a subsequent stage. The respondent No. 1 expressed their inability to pay the same on the ground that since they 'cleared goods ...

Atlas and Union Jute Press Co. Ltd. Vs. Kingslay Industries Limited

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN674

Tapan Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the ld. First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 56 of 2000 affirming judgment and decree passed by ld. Trial Court in T.S. No. 62 of 1996 dismissing the suit.2. The plaintiff brought the suit against the original defendant, a monthly tenant on the ground of transferring the tenanted premises to the present defendant company Kingslay Industries Limited by the erstwhile defendant company Kingslay Corporation Private Limited without express consent in writing of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff by virtue of a scheme of amalgamation the erstwhile defendant company being Kingslay Corporation Private Limited transferred all the properties, rights and interest including the tenancy right in respect of the suit premises to the defendant No. 2 company Kingslay Industries Limited by the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 8.5.95 in company Petition No. 39 of ...

Ajit Barman and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN747

Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. These two appeals bearing Nos. C.R.A. 284 of 2005 and C.R.A. 380 of 2005 are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 3(12) of 2004 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 162 of 2003 convicting six accused persons and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for 10 years each with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default R.I. for six months Under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and further sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default R.I. for two months each under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code with the direction that both the sentences will run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar, four convicts viz. Ajit Barman, Khirod Barman, Sashi Mohan Barman and Chamiruddin alias Kyalsa have preferred the appeal bearing C.R.A. ...

Auroma Coke Limited and anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT174(HC)

Maharaj Sinha, J.1. By virtue of the order of the Appeal Court dated 11th December, 2006 both the learned senior counsel, namely, Mr. Samaraditya Pal on behalf of the writ petitioners and Mr. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta on behalf of the first four respondents herein (shortly called SAIL) made their respective submissions in Court.2. Since the point of maintainability of this writ petition was raised by Mr. Gupta he made his submissions first in' support of the preliminary objection raised by him that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and Mr. Pal made his submissions thereafter primarily contending that the writ petition is dearly maintainable.3. However, before Mr. Gupta, in fact, made his submissions on the question of maintainability of this writ petition, Mr. Pal pointed out that the preliminary objection as to the maintainability as raised on behalf of SAIL should be treated to be a plea of demurrer and as such SAIL had to show that the writ petition on the face of it i...

In Re: Celica Developers P. Ltd. (No. 1) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008]145CompCas154(Cal)

Indira Banerjee, J.1. In this application under Sections 391(1) and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956, summons for directions were taken out for dispensing with the meetings of the shareholders of the applicants.2. The prayer is allowed, since the written consent of all the shareholders of the applicant-company have been annexed in original to the affidavit in support of the summons.'3. Summons be signed as on date.4. The application is thus disposed of.5. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities....

Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and ors. Vs. N.K. Dey and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR629]

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Senior Assistant Manager in Food Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as FCI) the appellant above named in the year 1972. While applying for the said post he described himself as SC Candidate. Throughout his service carrier he enjoyed such benefit until it was discovered that he did not have appropriate scheduled caste certificate.The executive committee of the Board of Directors of the FCI terminated his service with effect from November 16, 1978 on the basis of a vigilance report. The respondent No. 1 approached Delhi High Court while by judgment and order dated November 12, 1982 the order of termination was set aside coupled with a direction to reinstate him in service. Accordingly, the said respondent was reinstated in service with effect from January 20, 1983.2. The FCI initiated an appropriate disciplinary proceeding. The respondent/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition b...