Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-22-2004
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN297
D.K. Seth, J. The preliminary objection : Maintainability of the appeal:1. Mr. Santanu Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the respondent, had taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. According to him, the decree was passed on 20th December, 2001. Against the said decree, a review application was preferred on 3rd/4th January, 2002. This review was partly allowed by an order dated 15th July, 2002. Therefore, when the appeal was preferred on 11th September, 2002 against the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2001, there was no judgment and decree, which stood modified by reason of the order dated 15th July, 2002, being the decree against which the appeal could have been preferred. The subsequent dismissal of the review application or rejection thereof on account of not being pressed by the applicant would not alter the situation and would still affect the maintainability of the appeal. In support of his contention. Mr. Mukherjee had relied upon a decision i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-15-2004
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(Cal)113
D.K. Seth, J. :1. The respondents had filed WP No. 1232 (W) of 1997 challenging the vires of Circular No, 600, dt. 23rd May, 1991, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) so far as it was inconsistent with and repugnant to Rule 8 of the IT Rules, 1962 (Rules) r/w Section 2(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 (Act) in relation to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. By a judgment and order dt. 24th Sept., 1998, the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the interpretation of CBDT in construing the provisions of Section 80HHC and Rule 8 through Circular No. 600, dt. 23rd May, 1991, was incorrect and accordingly a declaration was issued that the said circular was not attracted in the case of the petitioners.2. The Department had preferred APO No. 792 of 1999 and the State of West Bengal, which was not a party to the proceeding, sought leave to and preferred APOT No. 229 of 1999 against the said judgment. During the pendency of these appeals, Sub-section (4B) was inserted in Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-20-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Cal106,(2004)1CALLT362(HC),2004(2)CHN142
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. For the purpose of communication in the year 1898 Indian Post Office Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') came into force. Under the provisions of the said act the Postal Authority is to act as a media for the purpose of communicating between the individuals as well as various organisations under the said Act for despatch of postal articles. The addressor is to affix postage for such particular article the rate of which is to be fixed from time to time by the Union of India by virtue of Parliamentary enactment. By the said Act the Government was empowered to frame rules under the said Act. Accordingly, rules framed which are called as Indian Post Office Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Rules'). Subsequently, the postal authority framed a guideline being called as 'Post Office Code' which was time to time amended.2. Under the post office guidelines any bulk consumer under the Indian Post Office Act has been given an opportunity to use a franking...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-22-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN607,[2006]130CompCas510(Cal),(2008)4CompLJ50(Cal),[2005]58SCL160(Cal)
Altamas Kabir, J. 1. These three appeals have been taken up together for hearing and disposal as they involve a common question as to whether an order passed by the Company Court under Section 394(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, is a 'conveyance' and an 'instrument' under the Indian Stamp Act, and therefore, liable to stamp-duty.2. As will appear from the materials on record, an application was filed by Gemini Silk Limited and Anr. before the learned Company Judge, being company petition No. 74 of 2002, praying for sanction of a Scheme of Re-construction and/or Amalgamation pursuant to Sections 391, 392, 393 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. By his order dated 8th August, 2002, the learned Judge, inter alia, held that an order sanctioning such a scheme under Section 394 of the said Act is covered by the definition of the expressions 'conveyance' and 'instrument' under the Indian Stamp Act and was, therefore, liable to payment of stamp-duty. The learned Company Judge directed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-29-2004
Reported in : (2004)1CALLT600(HC)
A.K. Mitra, J.1.This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred challenging the Judgment and order dated 19.1.1998 passed by the learned 10th Assistant District Judge, Alipur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 276 of 1997 affirming the order dated 27.5.1997 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Alipur in Miscellaneous Case No. 50 of 1996.2. The background of the case may be summarised in the manner as follows:The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Kamal Ghosh and Sri Amal Ghosh are the owners in respect of premises No. 208A, Rash Behari Avenue, Calcutta-29. Once Sri A.K. Dutta was the monthly tenant in respect of South Eastern Flat of the second floor of the said premises at a rental of Rs. 550.00 payable according to English Calendar month. The rent was being paid in two shares that is Rs. 275/- each to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Sri Kamal Ghosh and Sri Amal Ghosh). It appears from the records that on July 1988 the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Title Suit No. 338/88 in the Court of learned 2nd ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-30-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN66
Garachand De, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th July, 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 93 of 1986 by which the judgment and order dated 31st March, 1986 passed in Title Suit No. 162 of 1980 of the 1st Additional Court of Munsif, Howrah was reversed.2. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of one Bindadin Tiwari. The plaintiffs' case in brief is that the said Bindadin Tiwari was a thika tenant in respect of the suit land measuring about 3 Kottas and 6 Chittaks on which he had fifteen rooms, including the shop room with brick walls and R. T. roofs and other fitting and fixtures fully detailed and described in the schedule to the plaint. Bindadin died on 11.5.75 leaving behind his widow (plaintiff No. 1) and three minor sons (plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4) who were in khas possession of two rooms and let out the other rooms after mutating their names. It is alleged that the defendant Md. Jalil Ansar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-05-2004
Reported in : (2004)1CALLT485(HC),2004(2)CHN652
P.K. Biswas, J.1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 9 of the Criminal Amendment Act 1952 is directed against the Judgment and order dated 5th January 1978 passed by Sri S.K. Mitra, learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Alipore in Special Case No. 17 of 1976 whereby the learned Judge was pleased to convict the accused appellants (Mongal Chandra Dey, Kashiswar Sarkar, Sudhlr Mlrdha alias Sushil Krishna Mirdha) under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default to suffer Rigorous Imprison for one month each and further convicting accused appellant No. 1 under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two months and acquitting one of all the charges.2. The facts leading to the filing of this Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-16-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Cal11,(2004)3CALLT263(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the District Judge at Howrah on 8th September, 2003 in the Miscellaneous Case No. 89 of 2001 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No. 487 of 2000.2. The fact reveals that the petitioner's husband instituted the aforesaid Matrimonial Suit in the appropriate Court of District Howrah because according to him marriage was solemnized therein under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thereafter, they shifted along with the parents of the petitioner to New Delhi and consequently to the United States of America. However, the opposite party/wife stayed there for sometime due to passport and/or clearance of visa etc. Thereafter she also went there and stayed at the matrimonial house at Chicago, United States of America. According to the petitioner, due to various reasons which will be reflected from the statements in the plaint as well as application, she herself left the matrimonial house an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-16-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)CHN568,(2005)ILLJ16Cal
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The principal issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the learned Judge was right in quashing the impugned notification which had extended the benefit of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as 'the said Act, 1948' to the class of employees getting salaries upto Rs. 6,500/- per month.2. Challenging the said notification series of writ petitions were filed mostly by the employees union both in original side and the appellate side of this Court.3. All the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated June 30, 2000 delivered by Mr. Samaresh Banerjea, J. (as His Lordship then was).4. Although the writ petitions involved diverse questions the principal challenge in the said writ petitions was the impugned notification dated December 23, 1996 by which Rule 50 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 was amended by raising the salary limit from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,500/-. In such view of the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-17-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN146
D. K. Seth, J.Appellants' contention:1. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel for the appellants, had challenged this judgment of affirmance in this second appeal, deciding the maintainability of the suit on the question of forum, on the ground that Order 23 Rule 3 proviso read with the explanation and Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) would not stand in the way of the maintainability of a suit by persons who were not parties to the suit since compromised when the scope of challenge under Rule 3 proviso read with explanation and Order 43 Rule 1(a)(ii) or within the scope of Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 47 CPC, had elapsed. The suit would not be barred by reason of the specific provision in the Contract Act relating to void and voidable contracts where fraud was alleged in such a circumstances. He had led us through various provisions of CPC as well as the Contract Act and the decisions of this Court in Gosto Behari Pramanik v. Malati Sen, : AIR1985Cal379 and S...
Tag this Judgment!