Kolkata Court January 2009 Judgments

Tarapada Dey and ors. Vs. Amitava Dey

Court: Kolkata

Biswanath Somadder, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of an order bearing No. 57 dated 14th March, 2007, passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case No. 961 of 2006 arising out of Title Execution case No. 48 of 1998.2. The petitioners in the instant application are the judgment-debtors who are contesting the execution case pending before the learned court below.3. By the order impugned, the learned court below dismissed the judgment debtors' application dated 20th May, 2006, filed before it under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.4. The facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposing the instant application, in brief, are as follows::By a common judgment delivered by the learned trial court, three suits, being Title Suit Nos. 2723/94, 2194/94 and 3558/94, in which the main dispute was between the two branches of a family over control of a business of sale an...

Dolat Electric Corporation and anr. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)25VST352(NULL)

1. This writ application has been filed against an order dated August 22, 2003 Reported as Dolat Electric Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer, Ezra Street Charge [2005] 141 STC 282 (WBTT) passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal') holding that the resistance stainless steel wire (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods') is not declared goods falling under sub-item (xv) of item (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the 1956 Act') on which tax was payable at the rate of four per cent. By the said order the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to reopen the assessment for the four quarters ended on March 31, 1999 under Section 46A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the 1994 Act') to assess sales of the said goods under the residuary entry as goods not elsewhere specified attracting higher rate of tax at twelve per cent.2. Facts revealed tha...

Oriental Insurance Co. Limited and anr. Vs. Madhumita Sarkar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2006 in W.P. No. 10869 (W) of 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The case of the writ petitioner/respondent in the writ petition was that her husband Late Chinmoy Sarkar, who was the holder of one Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy, met with an accident on 24.06.2003 and he died on 25.06.2003. The Senior Branch Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Haldia Branch, Haldia, Medinipur was duly informed about such death of the writ petitioner's husband by a letter dated 30.06.2003 issued by the present writ petitioner/respondent and such letter was duly received by the Senior Branch Manager of the concerned Insurance Company. Such policy was for the period from 31.3.1998 to 31.3.2010 and the insured amount was Rs. 10 Lacs.2. On 29.07.2003 the writ petitioner/respondent sent a letter to the Senior Branch Manager of the Insurance Company claiming the benefits of the...

Century Enka Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)223CTR(Cal)475

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is admitted by the Court on the following substantial questions of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the appellant was not entitled to depreciation of Rs. 43,71,472 and the investment allowance of Rs. 27,01,145 on the increased cost of the plant and machinery resulting from increase in the liability to repay the foreign currency loans increased for purchase of such plant and machinery?2. In this matter the assessment year involved is 1988-89. The learned Tribunal held that under Section 43A of the said Act the claim of investment allowance is not allowable. Mr. Khaitan, appearing in support of this appeal drew our attention to Section 43A which is quoted hereunder:43A.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where an assessee has acquired any asset from a country outside India for the purposes of his business or profession and, in cons...

Sri Arup Hazra Vs. Smt. Manashi Hazra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal135

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a suit for divorce filed on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 31, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Barasat, Dist- North 24-Parganas, in Matrimonial Suit No. 37 of 2003 thereby dismissing the said suit with the finding that the husband failed to prove the grounds taken in such proceeding.2. The appellant before us filed a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 37 of 2003 in the Court of learned District Judge at Barasat which was subsequently transferred to the aforesaid Fast Track Court and the case made out by the appellant may be summarised thus:a) The parties were married according to Hindu rites and customs on March 5, 1998 and in the said wedlock, a female baby was born on January 9, 1999.b) The marriage was a negotiated one and the parties used to reside in the same locality within Post Office Madhyamgram, P.S...

Hanuman Prasad Bagri Vs. Bagrees Cereals (P.) Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2009]90SCL209(Cal)

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The cuisine is English, the flavour unmistakably Indian. The blend in the appellants' plaint is on a base of the classical exceptions to the rule in Foss v. Harbottle [1843] 2 Hase 461 (Ch.), it has a generous dollop of Loch v. John Blackwood Ltd. [1924] All ER 200 (PC) as Indianised by Hind Overseas (P.) Ltd. v. Ragunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla : [1976]2SCR226 and it carries a suggestion that it be tasted with a side order of Clemens v. Clemens Bros. Ltd. The underlying theme of the plaint is that the first defendant is merely the corporate avatar and repository of ancestral Hindu family business in which partnership principles should apply such that the exercise of majority rights therein would be subject to equitable considerations.2. The suit is on rebound, as any student of company law would know. The appellants' petition of the late 1980s under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act was stultified on a reading of the petition that it carried only a directori...

Upendra Kumar Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal162

ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition dated January 30th 2006 is seeking the following orders: (i) a mandamus directing the respondents to take possession of vehicle No. WB-25/5439 and give it back to him; (ii) a mandamus directing the second and third respondents to restore his name to the certificate of registration of the vehicle.2. The following are the undisputed facts. In the certificate of registration dated August 14th, 1996, at p. 19, the petitioner was shown as the registered owner of the vehicle, and name of the fifth respondent, M/s. Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited, was specified as the person with whom he had entered into a hire purchase agreement. The financier alleged that the petitioner failed and neglected to repay the loan in terms of the hire purchase agreement and it took possession of the vehicle, a truck, on June 17th 1999. By a notice dated August 13th, 1999, at p. 25, issued under Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the R...

Jagadish Prasad Awasthi Vs. Allahabad Bank and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2009(121)FLR677],(2009)IIILLJ447Cal

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Shri Jagadish Prasad Awasthi while working as the Branch Manager of Allahabad Bank faced a disciplinary proceeding, inter alia, on the charges mentioned in the charge sheet. The Bank initially issued a show chause notice to him on January 9,1984, inter alia, asking him to show cause why appropriate action would not be taken for the irregularities and/or indiscipline mentioned in the said show cause notice committed during his tenure as Manager of Tejpur Branch between July 3, 1981 and May 31, 1983. The said notice was issued by one R.S. Sharma, the then Regional Manager of the Bank. The Bank, however, did not proceed further on the basis of the said show cause notice contemporaneously. After about two years on March 25, 1986 while Shri Aswathi was working as an officer of the Bank posted at Guwahati Branch he was charge sheeted for his ommission and/or commission of indiscipline and/or irregular activities while working as a Manager of the Bank at Tejpur duri...

Cit Vs. Nicco Corporation Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

1. We have heard Mr. Khaitan. We have also perused the records placed before us. It appears that there is delay of only 98 days in filing this application. Mr. Khaitan did not join issue in this matter. In our considered opinion sufficient cause has been shown in this application to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal be registered accordingly.2. Heard Mr. Khaitan. Perused the petition. It appears that the point was already dealt with by our Division Bench in CIT v. Coventry Spring & Co. Ltd. : (2002) 257 ITR 632 (Cal). The question which was decided was:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be rectified under Section 154 after issue of notice under Section 143(2) ?3. It appears that the Division Bench came to the conclusion that it was possible for the assessing officer to issue a subsequent notice under Section 143(2) and to hear...

Cit Vs. Gmm Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

1. We have heard Mr. Dipak Som, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant. We have also perused the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the order of the learned Tribunal. It appears to us that most of the grounds which were tried to be made out here were not pressed before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the department. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of agency/trading relating to earth moving equipments, manufacturing of diesel generating sets etc. The assessing officer made addition in respect of cess paid on electricity, payment made to the insurance company, payment made on account of computer software maintenance, prior period expenses, house property income and depreciation in respect of furniture given on hire.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted all those additions which were made by the assessing officer. The Tribunal held that the assessee paid the ces...