Kolkata Court March 2007 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.
RabIn Barman Vs. National Institute of Homoeopathy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN926
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25th September, 2006 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge whereby His Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ application.2. The writ petitioner/appellant herein challenged the legality and validity of the chargesheet issued on 4th June, 2003 to the writ petitioner. This Hon'ble First Court at the time of moving the said writ petition on 9th September, 2005 gave liberty to the respondent authorities to proceed with enquiry proceedings and further to pass a final order, but that order should not be given effect to without the leave of the Hon'ble Court.3. After conclusion of such enquiry proceedings, a leave was prayed in the said writ petition to give effect to the final order dated 30th January, 2006 passed by the authorities in the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner/appellant herein. The said application was heard out before the Hon'ble Single Judge on 18th September, 2006 ...
Bijoy Nagar Tea Company Ltd. Vs. Narsing Dasgupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN97
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the Order No. 17 dated 24th March, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jalpaiguri, in title Suit No. 85 of 2005.2. The present petitioner, as defendant No. 2, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Trial Court on 3rd January, 2006. The opposite party/plaintiff filed a written objection thereto on 2nd March, 2006.3. It was claimed in the said application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code that admittedly the tenure of 12.77 acres allegedly belonging to Prem Singh Das and recorded in C.S. Record No. 86/5 was purchased by Prodyut Kumar Bose, an Advocate of Siliguri Court and in the R.S. record-of-rights the total land holding of Sri Bose was recorded in five different Khatians. The plaintiff in the suit gave the history of the alleged original tenure recorded in...
Alka Khemka Vs. Kishan Lakkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN407
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the Order No. 16 dated 12th June, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 230 of 2004.2. After hearing learned Counsel for both parties and on perusal of relevant materials it appears that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the learned Court on behalf of the petitioner. The opposite party/respondent filed written objection against such prayer for amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment, if allowed, would change the nature, scope and object of the suit. The learned Court by the order dated 12.6.2006 rejected the said application for amendment.3. Mr. Sen, as learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court, failed to appreciate the matter in its proper perspective. It was submitted that at the time of filing of the matrim...
Biswanath Bhuwania and ors. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Cal191,(2007)2CALLT627(HC),2008(1)CHN412
ORDERDipankar Datta, J.1. M/s. Anirox Pigments (hereafter the company) was extended credit facilities by the Indian Bank. The petitioners stood as guarantors to the credit facilities sanctioned to the company. By virtue of loss suffered by the company, on or about 12-12-2006 a reference was made under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985, (hereafter SICA) before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter BIFR) and the same was registered as BIFR Case No. 1117/2006. The company also failed to liquidate its dues and a substantial amount remained unpaid to the Bank. It is in this background that the Bank issued a letter dated 13-1-2007 which has been made the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. By the impugned letter, the petitioners were informed of freezing of savings accounts maintained by the petitioners 1 and 3 with it in view of the fact that the company had failed to repay the amount due to the Bank resu...
Sri Kamal Prasad Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: (2007)2CALLT584(HC)
Soumitra Pal, J.1. In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders both dated 22nd December, 2006 passed by the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade on several grounds. The principal grounds are that the principles of natural justice had been violated in passing the impugned order since the complaint received from the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata which formed the basis of the impugned order was not furnished and the orders do not spell out the reasons for imposing penalty. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of one of the orders which is as under:1) A notice of even No. dated 23.08.06 was issued to M/s. Megha International, 55/1 A, Strand Road, 2nd Floor, Room No. 204, Kolkata -700 006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'noticee firm') under Sections 8, 9(4), 10 and 11 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, calling upon the noticee firm to show cause as to why DEPB No. 0210017793 dated 23....
Dalia Dutta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN136,[2007(113)FLR1135]
1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an unsuccessful applicant and is directed against the order dated December 17, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in O.A. No. 762 of 2002 thereby dismissing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act filed by the present writ petitioner.2. The following facts are not in dispute:One Shyamal Kumar Dutta, the deceased husband of the writ petitioner, was an employee of the South Eastern Railway, who died-in-harness on October 18, 2000 in South-Eastern Railway Central Hospital, Garden Reach. In the wedlock between the writ petitioner and the said Shyamal Kumar Dutta a son was born and at present the said minor son in custody of the mother of the deceased employee, i.e., his grandmother.After the death of the deceased employee, the writ petitioner approached the employer for release of Provident Fund, Gratuity and other service benefits includ...
Dilip Dey Vs. Manasi Press and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2007
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ162Cal
ORDER1. This appeal has been preferred from the judgment and order dated May 20, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in G.A. No. 1997/2004 in connection with W.P. No. 771/2004 whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge disposed of the application for interim payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') without issuing any direction upon the employer to make payment of any amount to the concerned employee pending the proceeding.2. The provision regarding payment of full wages to the workman during pendency of the proceeding in higher Courts, had been specifically provided in Section 17-B of the said Act which is quoted hereinbelow:17-B. Payment of full wages to workman pending proceeding in higher Courts.-Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, t...
Vesuvius India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: (2008)116TTJ(Kol.)393
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dt.22nd May, 2006 of the learned CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata relating to asst. yr.2003-04.2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 28th Nov., 2003 declaring a total income of Rs. 16,69,79,570. The details of payment of tax, i.e., TDS and advance tax as mentioned in the body of the CIT(A)'s order is as under: _________________________________________________________________| Particulars | Amount (Rs.) | Amount (Rs.) ||____________________________|___________________|________________|| Tax on total income | | 6,13,64,992 || Less : TDS | | 15,86,594 || | | _____________ || | | 5,97,78,398 || Less: Advance tax paid on: | | || 17.06.2002 | 55,00,000 | || 14.09.2002 | 1,82.00,000 | || 14.12.2002 | 2,20,00,000 | || 15.03.2003 | 2,00,00,000 | 6,57,00,000 || | _____________ | _____________ || Tax payable/(refundable) | | 59,21,602 ||____________________________|___________________|________________| The ...
Usha Ranjan Sarkar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: (2007)109TTJ(Kol.)673
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dt. 19th July, 2006 of the CIT(A)-XVII, Kolkata, for asst. yr. 2003-04. In this appeal by the assessee, the following grounds have been raised: 1. That the learned CIT(A) misunderstood the clarification and submission of the appellant and erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 84,10,927 at Amta Work, Rs. 46,90,650 at Alipurduar Work which may kindly be deleted. 2. The accounts of the assessee are audited and principles of accountancy have been followed correctly and the learned CIT(A) erred in understanding the clarification. 3. In respect of addition of work-in-progress amounting to Rs. 57,28,926, it is stated that the process of measuring and calculation is wrong and the learned CIT(A) erred in properly appreciating the fact and confirming the addition; the same may kindly be deleted.2. The first two grounds are against sustenance of additions of Rs. 84,10,927 in respect of Government sub-contract works for Amta-Jhikara R...
Mahendra Papatlal Shah Vs. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-2007
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas72(Cal),[2008]82SCL165(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the order dated February 23, 2004, passed by a learned single judge of this Court by which his Lordship rejected an application filed by the appellant for setting aside the order dated May 10, 2000, passed by his Lordship in C.P. No. 178 of 2000 in connection with C.A. No. 122 of 2000.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus:(a) The appellant before us is a shareholder of two companies being AHIL and AHL. On January 31, 2000, the board of directors of AHIL and AHL duly approved the scheme of arrangement, reconstruction, and consequent, reduction of capital and necessary board resolution was passed.(b) On February 1, 2000, AHIL intimated the Bombay Stock Exchange and the Calcutta Stock Exchange about the said scheme of arrangement and the report was prepared by SBI Capital Markets Ltd., to determine sustainable capital and financial structure of AHIL.(c) On February 28, 2000, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »