Kolkata Court August 2007 Judgments

B.V. Van Oord Atlanta Vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

1. The appeals by the assessee for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 and the appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2001-02 arise out of a single order of Commissioner (Appeals)-XI, Kolkata, dated 28-2-2007.As these appeals involve common issues, for the sake of convenience, the same are being disposed of by this consolidated order.2. There are five grounds of appeal in this year. All the grounds relate to only one issue, i.e., rejection of the appellant's claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) that it did not have a PE in India in the relevant financial year, and that the profits earned by the appellant were not taxable in India.3. At the time of hearing before us, the assessee's learned Counsel submitted that the appellant company was incorporated in Netherlands, and its entire control and management was in that country. As such, the appellant was a foreign company within the meaning of Section 2(23A) of the Act. The appellant had undertaken a sub-contract for dredging, which was...

Renuka Seal and ors. Vs. Sabitri Dey and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2008Cal75,(2007)3CALLT322(HC),2007(4)CHN548

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1942 of 2000 at the instance of the defendants/appellants.2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for recovery of khas possession of the suit shop room located in the ground floor of premises No. 40, Garanhatta Street, Calcutta from the defendants/appellants on expiry of lease by efflux of time.3. A decree for damages for illegal use and occupation of the suit shop room on and from 1st day of Ashar 1407 B.S. to 27th day of Kartick 1707 B.S. at the rate of Rs. 3/- per diem and a further decree for mesne profit on and from the date of filing of suit until recovery of khas possession of the suit premises, were also sought for incidentally against the defendants in the said suit.4. Admittedly by a registered deed of lease executed between the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/responde...

W.B. State Consumer's Co-operative Federation Ltd. Vs. W.B. Dairy and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(4)CHN176

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two mandamus appeals were heard together as these appeals are preferred against the self-same order dated 13th February, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court thereby allowing a writ application filed by the common respondent No. 1 herein, namely, the West Bengal Dairy & Poultry Development Corporation Ltd.2. In the writ application filed by the respondent No. l in these two appeals, it prayed for mandamus commanding the Food Corporation of India (in short 'FCI'), to receive the bank draft of Rs. 6,64,000/- bearing No. 612001 of Punjab National Bank, N.S. Road Branch dated 12th August, 2005 towards the earnest money being 10% of total costs of the quantity of the damaged rice sought to be purchased by it which were lying at the depot under FCI, Siliguri and to allot the said stocks of damaged rice in favour of the writ petitioner. In the said writ application, further prayer was made for commanding the FCI to recall the allotment order in ...

Sk. Md. Zakeria Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(1)CHN246

Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.2. Initially when the matter was taken up on 29th June 2007, directions for affidavits were given. The matter was thereafter adjourned till 17th July, 2007. Subsequently, 2nd August, 2007, on the prayer of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, time to file affidavit-in-opposition was extended by a week. Today, the matter appears 'For Orders'. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State authorities submits that they have not used any affidavit-in-opposition. I am, therefore constrained to take up this matter and decide on the basis of the pleadings in the writ petition, which stand uncontroverted.3. The writ petitioner was appointed as an approved clerk of a High School in the district of Birbhum and was serving there since 7th October, 1969. He retired from service on 31st January, 2007. He, thus, appears to have been in service for around 37 years.4. Before his retirement, he...

Skf South East Asia and Pacific Pte Ltd. Vs. Hi-tech Bearing P. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008]144CompCas419(Cal),[2009]92SCL41(Cal)

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The company throws a preliminary challenge to the creditor's application for winding up being received. The statutory notice, the company says, was not issued to its registered office and, thus, the legal fiction in Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, would not work in favour of the petitioner. The company also makes out a case in defence of the claim and urges that in the unlikely event of the creditor's petition being found maintainable, it should not be admitted by virtue of the substantial defence that the company sets up.2. The petitioner claims a sum of euro 3916.47 to be due from the company and suggests that the company's reluctance to pay the Indian equivalent thereof despite receipt of the statutory notice warrants this petition being received and the company being ultimately sent into liquidation. The petitioner is incorporated in Singapore and claims to be part of the SKF group of concerns, headquarters in Sweden but having substantial operat...

In Re: Hi-tech Bearings Private Ltd.; in Re: Skf South East Asia and P ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN282

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The company throws a preliminary challenge to the creditor's application for winding up being received. The statutory notice, the company says, was not issued to its registered office and, thus, the legal fiction in Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 would not work in favour of the petitioner. The company also makes out a case in defence of the claim and urges that in the unlikely event of the creditor's petition being found maintainable, it should not be admitted by virtue of the substantial defence that the company sets up.2. The petitioner claims a sum of Euro 3916.47 to be due from the company and suggests that the company's reluctance to pay the Indian equivalent thereof despite receipt of the statutory notice warrants this petition being received and the company being ultimately sent into liquidation. The petitioner is incorporated in Singapore and claims to be part of the SKF group of concerns, headquartered in Sweden but having substantial operat...

ibrahim Mallick Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(4)CHN1049

ORDERLeave granted.The appellant was a Government servant who retired on 31.7.2000. The appellant joined the service as Assistant Teacher on 12.8.1977. In 1981 a scheme was introduced for payment of pension. Then the Government servants were given option either to opt for pension scheme or Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The appellant did not opt for pension scheme in time. Thereafter, the appellant made series of attempts to exercise her option but she was not given permission. Aggrieved by that, she filed a writ petition and the same was rejected by the learned Single Judge and her appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Against the same, the present appeal is filed by way of SLP.Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Counsel for the State. Counsel for the State had submitted that the appellant was given enough opportunity to exercise her option and she did not avail those opportunities and did not exercise the option before the due date, whereas the Counsel for...

Arjun Kumar Ray Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT276(HC),2007(4)CHN730

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of the same Judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on 7th May, 2003 in W.P. No. 3010(W) of 2003 whereby and whereunder the said learned single Judge was pleased to hold that the writ petitioner (Arjun Kumar Ray) was an employee of the Damodar Valley Corporation (in short 'DVC') till the date of the delivery of the Judgment by the learned single Judge and the post held by the said writ petitioner should also be regarded as a sanctioned post till that day. The learned single Judge, however, also held that the writ petitioner should be deemed to be a regular employee of the PVC so long the sanction of the post is not withdrawn by the DVC in accordance with law.2. The brief facts of the case are narrated hereinafter:The writ petitioner joined the post of Motor Boat Driver in Damodar Valley Corporation on provisional and contractual basis for a period of one year on the basis of the letter of appointment dated 22nd S...

Union of India (Uoi) (S.E. Rly.) Vs. Ambica Construction

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT587(HC)

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The principal ground urged in challenging the reasons, subsequently supplied by the arbitrator in support of the original non-speaking award, is that prior to the arbitration there was an agreement under which the respondent-contractor had received payment in full and final satisfaction of its claims. It is submitted that in view of such agreement, no payment could have been sought in terms of the principal agreement and all disputes arising out of the principal agreement stood resolved.2. Immediately prior to the reference being taken up by the arbitrator, there were two sets of proceedings; one under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the other under Sections 5, 8 and 11 thereof. The application under Sections 5, 8 and 11 of the 1940 Act was disposed of by an order of July 10, 1996, the relevant portion whereof is set out in the reasons given in support of the award in the following manner:A point has been raised by the Respondent (Railways) that prior ...

Sk. Ramjan Ali Vs. the Chief Executive Officer and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)1CALLT166(HC)

Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. This petitioner, Sk. Ramjan Ali, by filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution has challenged the orders dated 5.9.2005 and 8.12.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Alipore, South 24-Parganas.2. Grievances of the petitioner, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows:The petitioner along with his family members have been permanently residing in premises No. 6A, Dr. Biresh Guha Street (P.S. Karaya) which was formerly known and numbered as 29/C, Dilkhusha Street and thereafter, as 56A Dilkhusha Street.3. Such property measuring more or less 2 cottahs and 12 chittacks originally belonged to one Salila Bibi alias Salehannessa who settled the land at premises No. 6A, Dr. Biresh Guha Street in favour of one Asma Khatoon, wife of Hazi Imam Molla. The said Hazi Imam Ali Molla by constructing structure of brick built walls with tin shed on the said land had been residing with Sk. Ramjan Ali and Sahadad A...