Kolkata Court July 2011 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.
R. Maity and Co. and Ars. Vs. Cesc Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction upon the State to withdraw the sanction granted to the Conditions of Supply of 2001, and in particular clause 29 of such Conditions.2. The case of the petitioner is that the electricity to its business premises was disconnected on 18th August, 2001. Prior thereto an inspection was held by the Licensing Company with a threat to disconnect line from the pole jumper. A complaint was also lodged at Tiljala Police Station and the said theft was proved correct as disconnection took place on 18th August, 2001. On an earlier occasion supply had been disconnected and when disconnected in 1998 WP No. 281 of 1998 was filed wherein an order was passed directing the Chief Electrical Inspector to inspect connection in the said premises. Accordingly, an inspection was held and report filed, wherefrom, it appears that the allegations of the Licensing Company was unfounded and accordingly reconnection of electricity was directed. Therefore, on t...
Popat and Kotecha Property and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-2011
1. In 1998, Eastern Railway published an employment notice, inter alia, inviting application for the post of nine hundred eighty two Gangman. The petitioners applied for the said post. After scrutiny, the Railways invited them to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioners were successful in such process and got themselves enlisted in a list of two thousand two hundred fifty three candidates out of nine thousand who appeared for the Physical Endurance Test (hereinafter referred to as PET). 2. The Railways received complaints with regard to irregularity. The allegations were investigated into. Ultimately, the Railways cancelled the said list that gave rise to litigation. The petitioners along with others approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, challenging the order of cancellation dated March 30, 2001. Vide order dated August 11, 2004, the Tribunal directed the Railways to complete the process of recruitment as expeditiously as possible. By the judgme...
Moloy Kumar Das. Vs. Krishna Chandra Adhikari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. These two appeals were heard together, one after the other, as those arise out of the same proceeding under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act (“Act”) and to some extent, are interlinked. 2. APOT no. 263 of 2010 is at the instance of a third party in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Act who has been admittedly dispossessed by the Special Officer appointed by the Court in the proceedings, and is directed against order dated August 16 & 17, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of two applications filed by the appellant, being GA no.1469 of 2006 and GA no.2478 of 2009, by giving leave to the appellant to approach appropriate forum for establishing his legal right in the property and also giving him liberty to file appropriate application seeking leave to sue the Special Officer, if necessary. The learned Single Judge, however, directed return of the machineries belonging to the appellant to him which were lying in the s...
Stewart Holl (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. This appeal is at the instance of the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax (“Act”) and is directed against an order dated March 31, 2004 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “D” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.97 (Cal) of 2000 & ITA No.1344 (Cal) 2001 disposing of those two appeals relating to Assessment Years 1997-97 and 1997-98 by a common judgment. The Appellant before us has paid double court fees as by a single appeal it has challenged order in respect of two assessment years. 2. The appellant is a public limited company and carries on business of growing and manufacturing tea. As part and parcel of its business, appellant purchased a small quantity of tea manufactured by other tea estates and blended those with the tea manufactured by it. According to the appellant, in order to get the appropriate blend, samples of different varieties of tea are mixed in appropriate proportions and tasted. As a consequence of such blending of different vari...
Sk. Guljar Mohammad and anr. Vs. Sk. ManiruddIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. Challenge is to the Order No.210 dated February 9, 2000 and Order No.212 dated April 26, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), nd Additional Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No.129 1989. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit for declaration of title, mandatory injunction and other reliefs. The petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. 2 3. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants / petitioners herein filed an application for local investigation and that application was allowed. Accordingly, Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee, learned advocate was appointed to hold the local investigation. 4. He submitted his report. He was examined in the Court but his cross-examination could not be completed. The defendants filed an application for expunge of some portion of the deposition of the Commissioner and that application was rejected. Being aggrieve...
Gkw Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (“Act”), 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against order dated August 28, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata in Income-tax (Appeal) being ITA No.1153 (Cal) of 2001 for the Assessment Year 1997-98 dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. 2. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: a) The assessee is a public limited liability company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and is assessed under the Act and the present appeal arises out of the appellant’s assessment for the Assessment Year 1997-98 for which the relevant previous year was financial year ended on March 31, 1997. b) The appellant carries on business of manufacture of alloy free cuttings and special sheets, black and bright bars, electrical stampings, laminations, strip wound core...
Smt. Ira Banerjee. Vs. Sree Shibnath Banerjee.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated August 17, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5 th Court, Barasat in Mat. Execution Case No.1 of 2010 thereby rejecting the prayer for interim attachment on an application under Order 21 Rules 54 and 66 of the C.P.C. 2. The husband / opposite party herein instituted the suit being Matrimonial Suit No.930 of 2000 against the petitioner for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife / petitioner herein is contesting the said suit. She filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that application was allowed, granting alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. The learned Trial Judge has also granted a litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. Ultimately, the husband filed an application for dismissal of the said matrimonial suit for non-prosecution and that application was allowed. The wife filed an application for execution of the order of alimony for the period during which ...
Faridabad Investment Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, W ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (“Act”) is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated August 21, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata, in Income-tax Appeal bearing ITA No.1375(Kol)/2002 for the Assessment Year 1995-96 dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: a) The appellant before us is a public limited liability company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and is assessed to tax under the Income-tax Act. The present appeal arises out of the assessment under the Act for the Assessment Year 1995-96 for which the relevant previous year was the Financial Year ended March 31, 1995. The appellant derives income from purchase and sale of and investment in shares, interest income, dividend income and rental income. For the Assessment Year 1995-96, the appellant filed a return on October 31, 1995 disclo...
Alok Todi and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax (“Act”), 1961 is at the instance of an assessee, represented by two of its erstwhile partners, and is directed against an order dated December 17, 2003 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in Income-tax (SS) Appeal No.34 (Kol) of 1998 for the Block Period 1987-88 to 1996-97 up to 2nd July, 1996. 2. Being dissatisfied, two of the partners of the erstwhile partnership firm, the assesse, have come up with the present appeal. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus: a) In course of search on July 2, 1996 in the residential premises of one Bijay Kumr Gutgutia, some papers relating to the firm, M/s. Shree Krishna Arvind Hatcheries, along with other books of accounts and a bunch of papers with identification mark BKG/5 were seized. There were some entries which related to the firm M/s. Shree Krishna Arvind Hatcheires indicating that the firm had undisclosed in...
Sri Sujit Ranjan Saha and anr. Vs. Som Prokash Singh.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.14 dated April 22, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Sealdah in Misc. Case No.102 of 2007. 2. The decree-holders filed this revisional application contending, inter alia, that they instituted a suit being Title Suit No.80 of 1995 before the learned Munsif, 1 st Court, Sealdah against one, Suresh Kumar Dhingra for recovery of khas possession after evicting the original tenant, mense profits and other reliefs on the ground of subletting, reasonable requirement, etc. 3. The suit was decreed on July 20, 2007 and the said decree was put into execution. The objector / opposite party herein filed an application under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 of the C.P.C. praying for determination of right, title and interest of the opposite party in respect of the premises in suit and that application was converted into the Misc. Case No.012 of 2007. The petitioners filed an application raising the question of maintainability o...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »