Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)57TTJ(Cal)220
ORDERR. V. EASWAR, J. M. :In these appeals by the assessee the only question is whether the departmental authorities were justified in making additions of Rs. 44,90,434 and Rs. 25,42,968 on account of interest accrued to the assessee.2. The appeals arise this way. The assessee is a public limited company. It was registered in the year 1970 to carry on the business of merchant-cum-development banking in all its aspects. The company could not, however, undertake development banking for want of resources and had to confine its activities to merchant banking with industrial consultancy. In the year 1980, a special resolution was passed in the annual general metering of the company to change the main object to include financial consultancy, computerised data processing, housing finance, hire - purchase and equipment leasing, export and import finance, etc. In pursuance of the new object the company utilised its funds more towards housing finance besides also utilising them in the field of e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
This writ application is directed against an order of termination of the service of the petitioner passed by the respondent no.2 under his memo No. PER:IRD:4050:2005 dated November 5, 2005. The back drop of this case in a nutshell is as under:- The petitioner participated in a selection process for appointment of Assistant General, Managers Net Working under the respondent Bank on the basis of his application dated May 3, 2003. By a communication issued under memo No.PER:HRD:RCT:6691:2003 dated December 17, 2003 the petitioner was informed by the respondent no.3 that he had been selected for appointment to the post of Assistant General Manager, Net working in SMG Scale–V with the conditions that he would be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining the respondent bank and he would be considered for conformation in service subject to his satisfactory performance, conduct and satisfactory report from the police authorities about his character and antecedent and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2003)LC56Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The issue in the instant appeal relates to the refund claim filed by the appellants, vide their letter dated 15-1-2001 for refund of Special Additional Duty paid in respect of the imports made from Nepal during the period from 13-3-2000 to 29-9-2000. The Special Additional Duty was paid by the appellants under protest and accordingly, the assessments were provisional. The said refund claim has been rejected by the authorities below on the ground that during the relevant period, Special Additional Duty was leviable on the imports and the same was exempted by issuance of the Notification No. 124/2000-Cus., dated 29-9-2000. The appellants are not disputing the factual position that Special Additional Duty on all Nepalese Imports into India, was exempted with effect from 29-9-2000 when Notification No. 124/2000 was issued. But they submit that the said Notification should be treated as clarificatory and hence having retrospective effect, inasmuch as under the Treaty of Trade and Agreem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
C.S.No.245 of 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Dilip Kumar Gooptu & ORS.versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation LTD.For the Plaintiffs : Mr.Jishnu Saha, Sr.Advocate Mr.A.K.Awasthi, Advocate Mr.Aishwarya Kr. Awasthi, Advocate For the Defendant : Mr.Moloy Ghosh, Sr.Advocate Mr.C.K.Dutt, Advocate Hearing concluded on : December 09, 2014 Judgment on : January 28, 2015 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement claimed to be entered into in July 1994 and in the alternative vacant and peaceful possession of premises No.3D, Camac Street, Kolkata and for mesne profits. The plaintiff had granted a lease of a portion of premises No.3D, Camac Street, Kolkata to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant on November 28, 1963 for a term of ten years and eleven months. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendant came into possession of the suit premises pursuant to such deed of lease. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendant c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)61ITD167Cal
1. In the appeal by the revenue it is contended that the deduction under section 80-O is to be allowed only on the net income brought into India in convertible foreign exchange and not on the gross amount of income so brought. In the assessment order, the deduction was computed as under : debited to P & L A/c Rs. 29,33,75,063B.Total receipt inclusion of foreign receipts Rs. 44,57,57,946C.Total foreign receipts Rs. 5,41,84,270Less : Receipt on which benefit ofdeduction would not be allowed Rs. 3,61,827 Rs. 5,38,22,443Expenditure allowable to foreign receipts ----- = -------------------------------- = 3,54,23,176 B 44,57,57,946Less : Expenditure - Rs. 3,54,23,176 Rs. 1,83,99,267 -----------------50% of Rs. 1,83,99,267, i.e., Rs. 91,99,633 allowed as deductionunder section 80-O." 2. On appeal, the CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1985-86 and the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, accepted the ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER WP No.1268 of 2015 CHANDRAMALLIKA SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. -VERSUSTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.For the Petitioners : Mr.Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Senior Advocate, Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Advocate, Ms.Swati Bhattacharyya, Advocate, Mr.Aditya Poddar, Advocate, Mr.Ankit Shroff, Advocate. For the State : Mr.Jayanta Kumar Mitra, Ld. Advocate General, Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Advocate, Mr.Paritosh Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Heard on : Judgment on : 08.01.2016, 08.04.2016, 25.07.2016, 10.08.2016, 15.01.2016, 18.03.2016, 01.04.2016, 06.05.2016, 24.06.2016, 20.07.2016, 27.07.2016, 03.08.2016, 08.08.2016, 17.08.2016. 05/10/2016. Biswanath Somadder, J.: The writ petitioner no.1 is a company registered under the Companies Act and the writ petitioner no.2 is its Director. The petitioners have approached this Court praying, inter alia, for the following principal reliefs: a) A writ of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(4)CHN473
Narayan Chandra Sil, J.1. This is to consider an application virtually under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner is the plaintiff. It is stated in the petition that the suit being No. 330 of 1990 was filed on 7.4.1990 against the defendants with the prayer for declaration that the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu, deceased passed by intestate succession to the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the instrument dated 20th January, 1981 has in fact in no manner affected claim of the plaintiff to such estate and the declaration that the plaintiff has now 1/4th share in the estate of the brother of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu along with other incidental reliefs. In the said suit an application was filed by the plaintiff for appointment of receiver and injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with and/or disposing of and/or encumbering and/or withdrawing and/or in any manner transferring or parting with the possession of any portion of the movable or immo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2008)IVCALLT183(HC),2008(4)CHN880,(2009)IILLJ549Cal
Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the alleged illegal and arbitrary decision of the respondent authority by way of initiating 'de novo' enquiry.2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India as far back as in 1994. He was transferred to local head office at Kolkata in September, 1999. In 2004, he was shifted to Howrah Zonal Office where he was posted as Senior Assistant. The petitioner was promoted to the Junior Management Grade Scale-I w.e.f. 10.11.2006. He was served with a charge sheet dated 24th April, 2006 issued by the respondent No. 2 wherein it was alleged that one Ms. Amrita Mukherjee, Assistant BPMM and GB Zonal Office, Howrah had made allegations against him in her complaint dated 18th February, 2005. The charges against the petitioner are as follows:Charge No. (i) - It is alleged that Ms. Amrita Mukherjee as well as a number of other colleagues/friends were made to beli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION GA No. 3821 of 2007 GA No. 758 of 2010 AP No. 373 of 2006 RAHUL MAHESHWARI -Versus- SHEILA GUHA AND AP No. 129 of 2010 RAHUL MAHESWARI -Versus- SHEILA GUHA AND OTHERS AND AP No. 776 of 2011 RAJEEV MAHESHWARI AND OTHERS -Versus- SUSAN REUBEN AND ANOTHER AND CC No. 3 of 2008 RAHUL MAHESHWARI -Versus- SHEILA GUHA 2 For the Petitioners: Mr Pratap Chatterjee , Sr Adv., Mr Samit Talukdar, Sr Adv., Mr Samrat Sen, Adv., Mr Paritosh Sinha, Adv., Ms Hasnuhana Chakraborty, Adv. For Sheila Guha: Mr Suhrid Ray Chowdhury, Sr Adv., Mr Dipankar Dhar, Adv., Ms Swati Bhattachargee, Adv., Mr Pallab Mandal, Adv., Mr Rajkumar Mandal, Adv. For Ela Dutta: Mr Haradhan Banerjee, Sr Adv., Mr Gautam Chakraborty, Adv. For the Respondents in AP No. 776 of 2011: Ms Noelle Banerjee, Adv.Hearing concluded on: November 23, 2011.BEFOREThe Hon'ble JusticeSANJIB BANERJEEDate: November 29, 2011. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : - At the centre of these matters is a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.CC 265 of 2010 allowing the complaint with cost and directing the OPs jointly and severally to return the cheque amounting to Rs.2,81,810/- to the complainant since it has not been encashed and lying in custody of the OPs within 45 days from the date of communication of the order. The OPs were further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, in default the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation. The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that the Complainant for solemnization of marriage celebration hired the services of the OPs and the banquet function was held on 12/12/08. The complainant deposited total amount of Rs.13,65,000/-. In terms of the discussion held by and between the parties i...
Tag this Judgment!