Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1995]215ITR249(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law to this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for its new freight container unit without setting off past losses of the said unit 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to the effect that relief under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be determined with reference to the working of the new unit only without reference to the profits of other units not eligible for deduction under this section ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1983-84 for which the relevant accounting year is the financial year 1982-83.3. The facts as narrated by the Tribunal in the stateme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN A.P.No.736 of 2011 STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. PAM DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD. For the Petitioners : Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Ld. Adv. Gen., Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv., Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv., Ms. Manali Bose, Adv., Mr. Arindam Mondal, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Suman Dutta, Adv., Mr. Priyankar Saha, Adv., Mr. Amritam Mandal, Adv. Heard On :21. 09.2015, 05.02.2016, 26.02.2016, 01.09.2016, 15.09.2016, 22.09.2016, 28.09.2016. Judgment On :3. d November, 2016 Soumen Sen, J.:- This is an application for setting aside of an arbitral award dated 6th April, 2011 in connection with disputes arising out of the work of Widening and strengthening of Nilgang Santoshpur Duttapukur Golabari Aminpur Road from 0.00 KMP to 28.85 KMP under Barasat Highway Division No.II in the District of North 24 Parganas. NABARD RIDF VII Sl. No.9(c) for Duttapukur Golabari Road under Barasat Highway ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri A.P.O.No.180 of 2012 C.S.No.299 of 2007 ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD.versus EXCEL DEALCOMM PVT.LTD.& ORS.For the Appellant : Mr.S.P.Sarkar, Senior Advocate Mr.Anupam Das Adhikari, Advocate Ms.Suruchi Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr.Utpal Bose, Advocate Mr.Rudraman Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Kuldeep Mullick, Advocate Mr.Pratik Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 : Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Advocate Mr.Chayan Gupta, Advocate Mr.Abhijit Sarkar, Advocate Heard on : February 20, 25 and 26, 2013. Judgment on : March 8, 2013. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.BACKDROP : Uniworth Apparel Limited was a company registered in Maharashtra under the Companies Act, 1956. It had an industrial unit at Thane (Navi Mumbai) in the District of Maharashtra. The Uniworth availed credit facilities from ICICI Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The writ petitioners question a decision of April 7, 2009 by the grievance redressal committee of the respondent private bank declaring the petitioner company to be a willful defaulter within the meaning of a Reserve Bank of India master circular dated July 1, 2008. There are several levels on which the challenge has been launched. The petitioners allege that the master circular is unconstitutional and, in any event, the grievance redressal mechanism contemplated there under is a meaningless, facile exercise. They say that even if the master circular is upheld in its entirety, the relevant committee of the bank may still be found to have acted without jurisdiction since the master circular applies to lender-borrower transactions between a bank and another; and, the nature of the agreement which is the subject matter of the proceedings did not involve a lender-borrower relationship between the bank and the petitioner company. The petitioners also allege violation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. On 15th of March, 2007 this Court passed the following order:1(a). In addition to the order passed in this suo motu petition, there shall be a further order in this writ petition in terms of prayer clause '1':1) An interim order restraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 preventing the petitioner organizations other NGOs and voluntary aid organization from reaching Nandigram to provide assistance to injured and deceased villagers.1(b). We further direct the District Administration to ensure that the unclaimed dead bodies are handed over to the appropriate authorities and the identified dead bodies are handed over to the lawful claimants after due legal formalities have been concluded, such as post-mortem and inquest report, so that the relatives are able to perform the last rites of the deceased.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Contempt)In the matter of: The Court on its own Motion1(c). All the newspapers throughout the Nation have today carried as a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN678,[2007]137CompCas834(Cal),(2008)2CompLJ32(Cal),[2008]81SCL140(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Two issues of some importance arise in this the proposed transferee company's petition for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation. The registered offices of the transferor companies are situated in other states and the proposed transferor companies have applied for approval of the scheme from the appropriate High Courts.2. The first issue is as to whether the authorised capital of a transferor company merges into the authorised capital of the transferee company upon the scheme being sanctioned and implemented, along with the rights relating thereto. There are two aspects to such matter: the first, whether following a scheme of amalgamation or complete merger the authorised capital of the transferor company gets added on to the authorised capital of the transferee company so that the post-amalgamation authorised capital of the transferee company swells by the amount of the authorised capital of the transferor company; secondly, whether following such increase of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2005Cal28,[2005]125CompCas708(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This application has arisen out of an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) followed by an appellate order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (D.R.A.T.). Although the parties argued at length in the merit but at the end of the argument Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent Bank, raised a point about the scope' and ambit of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this respect. Possibly he wanted to see no stone unturned. Even then I am not inclined to give incidental value to such part of the argument because it may ultimately touch the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court. Articles 226 and 227 are plenary powers of the High Court under the Constitution of India. Such plenary power of the High Court is exhaustive in nature. The same cannot be curtailed. Even then the Writ Court in its wisdom tries to avoid t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2003]53CLA328(Cal)
ORDER(1) That all the property, rights and powers of the transferor company specified in the first, second and third parties of the Schedule hereto and all other property, rights and powers of the transferor company be transferred without further act or deed to the transferee company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be transferred to and vest in the transferee company for all the estate and interest of the transferor company therein but subject nevertheless to all charges now affecting the same other than (here set out any charges which by virtue of the compromise or arrangement are to cease to have effect): and(2) That all the liabilities and duties of the transferor company be transferred without further act or deed to the transferee company and accordingly the same shall, pursuant to Section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be transferred to and become the liabilities and duties of the transferee company; and(3) That all proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)2CALLT539(HC)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that a winding up petition under sections 433. 434 and 439 of the Companies Act. 1956 was filed by ICICI Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as ICICI) for winding up of M/S Maxlux Glass Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company). The Company was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as a private Company limited by shares. The authorised share capital of the Company is Rs. 100, 100,000.00 divided into 10,000.000 share of Rs. 10/- each. The issued and subscribed capital of the Company is Rs. 70,130,360.00 made up of equity shares of Rs. 10/- each fully paid up. The Company carries on business of manufacturing of different kind of glass article. The Company was indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.4,75,03.044/- as on 15th August. 1999 on account of money lent and advanced by the petitioner and not repaid by the Company. The petitioner claimed interest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1998(60)ECC48
Samaresh Banerjea, J.1. Common questions of law and fact being involved in both the writ petitions, the same have been heard analogously and will be governed by the same judgment.2. One of the questions which has come up for consideration in the instant writ proceedings, is, whether Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA) and Section 34(2) of FERA are ultra vires the Constitution of India and is illegal, invalid and null and void.3. Each of the writ petitioner has also challenged in the writ petition summons issued against each of them under Section 40(1) one of FERA by the appropriate authority on merits.4. In the writ petition No. 2580 of 1996, it is the case of the petitioner Ms. Amgana Sengupta, daughter of Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta, a former Judge of this Hon'ble Court and the Allahabad High Court, and who has obtained a Bachelor's Degree in law from London University and Master's Degree in law from Cambridge University and ...
Tag this Judgment!