Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-07-2014
..... from the date of coming into force of the west bengal premises requisition & control (temporary provisions) second amendment act, 1947. according to the plaintiff the requisitioned portion of the said premises stood automatically released from requisition with effect from april 1, 1992 by virtue of section 10b. the defendant ..... fixed at rs.404/- per month. the premises were requisitioned under the west bengal premises requisition & control (temporary provisions) act, 1947. an amendment to the 1947 act was introduced which came into effect from march 31, 1987. the amendment, that is, section 10b of the act of 1947 provided that a requisitioned portion would stand automatically derequisitioned after expiry of a period of five years .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-06-2014
..... company law board. in other words, the high court is denuded of its jurisdiction to entertain any disputes relating to oppression and mismanagement. the said companies (amendment) act, 1988 came into effect on and from 31st may, 1991 conferring the jurisdiction on the company law board to entertain the company petition apart from other provisions ..... facts which are sought to be brought under the subsequent events are, in fact, a fresh cause of action and because of the interdiction of the amendments brought by company (amendments) act, 1988, the proper forum is the company law board. having considered the respective submissions, it is no doubt true that at the time of ..... the parties intend to rely upon a distinct and separate cause of action unconnected with the original one, the same cannot be considered because of the companies (amendment) act, 1981 and placed reliance upon a judgment of the supreme court in case of dabur india ltd., -versus k.r.industries reported in (2008) 10 scc595and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-24-2014
..... application for grant of probate shall also be verified by at least one of the witnesses. the petition for probate under section 280 of the indian succession act is required to be verified by the petitioners.in the instant case the attesting witnesses have already verified the petition and at least one of the ..... would be allowed to rectify the said defects. mr.pratap chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing with mr.amitesh banerjee and mr.jishnu chowdhury submitted that this amendment application has been filed in order to make the pending applications infructuous. it is stated that the petitioners have failed to explain the discrepancies in dates ..... application the have plaintiffs also filed in a supplementary affidavit affirmed by govind ram goenka on july 5, 2013 disclosing certain documents in support of the amendments prayed for in the said petition. the petitioners admit that there are explain certain discrepancies and such discrepancies by contending that due to inadvertence on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-10-2014
..... vi rule 17 did not apply to the present suit in view of section 7 read with section 16(2)(b) of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002. none of the supreme court decisions cited on behalf of the defendant helps it. the hon ble supreme court in vidyabai & ors.(supra) considered ajendraprasadji n. ..... commencement of section 16 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1999 and section 7 of the code of civil procedure (amendments) act, 2002. the present suit was of 1998 and, therefore, the amended order vi rule 17 had no role to play. consequently, according to him, the decisions cited on ..... . the plaintiff was seeking to introduce a new cause of action by the proposed amendments. in reply mr.chakroborty for the plaintiff submitted that sections 7 and section 16(2)(b) of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002 specified that the amended order vi rule 17 would not be applicable to pleadings which were filed before the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-03-2014
..... dated 23.09.2011 in case of home solution retail india ltd. vs. union of india: 2011 (24) s.t.r. 129 (del.) upheld the retrospective amendment. subsequently the matter was challenged before the honble supreme court and honble supreme court has passed an interim order. in view of these various judgments board vide its mf ..... of service tax. 5.4.it is further observed that adjudicating commissioner has not imposed any separate penalty under section 76, 77 and 78 of the finance act, 1994. composite penalty under different provisions of the statute is impermissible as held by this tribunal in the case of commissioner of central excise, coimbatore vs. precot ..... property for use in the course or furtherance of business of commerce would by itself constitute a taxable service and be exigible to service tax under the said act. the obvious consequence of this finding is that the interpretation placed by the impugned notification and circular on the said provision is not correct. consequently, the .....
Tag this Judgment!