Kolkata Court February 2009 Judgments

Gaurav Agarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Cal)408,[2009]314ITR123(Cal)

Soumitra Pal, J.1. The court : In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated May 7, 2007, and the notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) dated May 23, 2008, for the assessment year 2005-06 issued by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 46(2), Kolkata, respondent No. 1 on several grounds including the point of jurisdiction.2. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit annexing the letter dated July 15, 2008, without enclosures which, according to the assessee, is a letter objecting to the action of Respondent No. 1 seeking to reopen the case under Section 148 and the assessment order dated December 31, 2008, passed under Sections 143(3)/147 of the Act. According to the petitioner the order under Sections 143(3)/147 could not have been passed by Respondent No. 1 without disposing of the application dated July 15, 2008, objecting to the notice under Section 148 of the Act.3. ...

Zafar Khan Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal187

1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioner challenging the decision of the learned single Judge whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge refused to adjudicate the grievances of the writ petitioner on merits on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Learned single Judge specifically held that this Hon'ble Court is lacking territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.2. Before proceeding further, facts mentioned in the writ petition are briefly narrated hereunder:The appellant/writ petitioner was initially employed in the Bengal Coal Company Limited as Pump Operator and the said appellant declared his date of birth as 14th February, 1948 at the time of initial appointment in the service. According to the appellant, the aforesaid date of birth was accepted and recorded in the Service Book and in the Provident Fund Records of the said company, which are still lying in the offi...

Amitava Bhattacharya Vs. Smt. Aparna Bhattacharya

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of an applicant under Sections 24/25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th March, 2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No. 424 of 1995, thereby dismissing the said application by rejecting the prayer of the appellant for declaration that the alleged marriage between the parties was null and void.2. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with this first appeal. The appellant filed a suit under Sections 24/25 of the Special Marriage Act in the Court of the District Judge, Hooghly which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hooghly. The case made out by the appellant may be summed up thus:(a) The appellant was aged 27 years and came from a middle class family. The appellant read up to Class-X and was suffering from various ailments since his birth. He was naturally handicapped and depended ...

Rameshwara Jute Mills Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar Daga and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2727

ORDERArunabha Basu, J.1. Scope and object of the amended provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), is the subject-matter of present discussion, which arises out of revisional application filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code, whereby and whereunder the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, in connection with Criminal revision No. 146 of 2006 is sought to be assailed by the petitioners herein.2. Petitioners herein instituted complaint case registered as Complaint Case No. 6333 of 2006 under Sections 406/409/465/467/471/477A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against eight persons including the company.3. Fact of the case on which the aforementioned complaint case was initiated is not relevant for the purpose of present discussion, save and except, that some of the accused persons as mentioned in the petition of complaint, are residents which falls outside for jurisdict...

The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata and anr. Vs. Vijay Kumar ...

Court: Kolkata

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The scheme and import of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are called into question in this appeal from an order passed on the Arya respondents' petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In effect, the learned Single Judge held that an alleged unauthorised occupant of public premises had a right for his version of things to be considered by the landlord before the matter could be brought before an estate officer under the said Act.2. The relevant facts are not much in dispute. The appellants issued a notice on July 28, 2006 requiring the writ petitioners to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the relevant premises to the authorised representative of the appellants. The grounds put forth appear from the material portion of the notice:WHEREAS a lease for 30 years with one option of renewal with effect from 11-10-1990 in respect of 6437.435 sq.m of land at Transport Depot Road was granted to you with certain terms...