Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-19-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)CHN170
G.C. De, J.1. Both the suits were filed on 3rd August, 1973 against the Life Insurance Corporation of India prayer for a decree for recovery of money due on two separate policies of Insurance issued by Ruby General Insurance Company, along with interest and other reliefs.2. In suit No. 354 of the 1973 Shri Naresh Kumar Rajgarhia prayed for a decree of Rs. 50,699.41p, after calculating interest @ 7% per annum from 29th July, 1970 till the filing of the suit on Rs. 41,900.41p. Similarly, in suit No. 355 of 1973 Shri Bijoy Kumar Rajgarhia prayed for a decree of Rs. 50,652.31 p. after calculating interest in the same manner indicating hereinabove on Rs. 41,861.41p.3. In both the suits prayers were also made for pendente lite as well as post degree interest.4. The plaint case in both the suits in brief is that policies for life were taken by Smt. B. D. Rajgarhia in the year 1956. She also took two separate loans from the defendant Corporation for Rs. 4615/- each on the basis of the said two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-08-2003
Reported in : (2004)ILLJ84Cal
..... v. life insurance corporation of india and ors. : (1969)iillj711sc :'in our view, article 137 only contemplates applications to courts. in the third division of the schedule to the limitation act, 1963, all the other applications mentioned in the various articles are applications filed in a court. further section 4 of the limitation act, 1963, provides for the contingency when the prescribed period for any application expires ..... in assam fixation of ceiling on land holdings act, 1956, has been pleased to hold that since there is nothing in the ceiling act which excludes the applicability of sections 4 to 24 of the limitation act, 1963, to proceedings under the ceiling act, the said provisions are applicable in view of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the limitation act, 1963.28. according to the learned counsel ..... section 90 of the act not being a court, the limitation act as such, had no applicability to the proceedings before him ......'43. from the aforesaid rival contentions of the respective parties, it now appears that the main question which falls for determination before this court in this proceeding is whether provision of section 5 of the limitation act is applicable in any proceeding before the employees' insurance court. the provisions relating to commencement of proceedings before the employees' insurance court has been mentioned in section 77 of the esi act. in terms of section 77(1-a) of the said esi act, every application shall be made before the employees' insurance .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-19-2003
Reported in : (2004)1CALLT26(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. These writ petitions were made for the common purpose. Therefore, the Court was pleased to direct to hear out all the writ petitions analogously. Several applications were also made in connection with the main writ petition. However, by making these writ petitions, petitioners wanted cancellation and/or withdrawal of a notice under seal and signature of the Estate Officer under Sub-section (1) and Clause (b)(iii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The notice in the nature of show cause is issued to give reply why the eviction should not be made to the respective petitioners. It is apparent that the respective petitioners were called upon in person or through a duly authorized representative capable to answer material questions connected with the matter along with the evidence which is intended to be produced in support of the cause shown at a personal hearing and a further notice was given that in case of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-02-2003
Reported in : (2003)3CALLT608(HC),[2004]121CompCas229(Cal),[2004]51SCL572(Cal)
Mahemmad Habeeb Shams Ansari, J. 1. The instant matter has been assigned to this Court by the order dated August 5, 2003 of His Lordship the Chief Justice.2. Judge's Summons have been taken out for leave to the applicants to make the application and for condonation of delay in making the application. The relief, prayed for is for an order directing the respondent-Official Liquidator to disclaim and/or give possession of the flat, more fully stated in the lease agreement dated May 24, 1985 being annexure 'A' to the affidavit filed in support of the Judge's Summons.3. Brief facts based upon which the above reliefs have been prayed for are that the applicants are the owners and landlord of the flat which was given on lease to Remington Rand of India Limited (in liquidation) reliance for which purpose has been placed upon annexures 'A' and 'B'. The applicants through their advocate by a letter dated January 31, 2003 served a notice upon the Official Liquidator requesting him to disclaim th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-04-2003
Reported in : (2004)1CALLT280(HC)
A.K. Bisi, J.1. In the instant suit against defendant No. 1 the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. and defendant No. 2 the Export Credit & Guarantee Corporation Ltd. the plaintiff Rahee Industries Ltd. has sought declaration, if necessary, that the plaintiff alone is entitled to the balance sum of Rs. 97,02,153.90p calculated by defendant No. 1 on account of the original plaintiff out of the proceeds of the transaction between the original plaintiff and the Egyptian National Railways and is entitled to the credit of the said amount less the sum of Rs. 16,11.099/- already credited to the account of the original plaintiff with defendant No. 1, decree for permanent mandatory injunction against defendant No. 1 to credit the said sum to the account of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 2 not to make any claim on the said sum or any portion thereof, decree for Rs. 80,91,054/- against defendant No. 2, interest @ 18% per annum on the said sum of Rs. 80,91,054/- from 18.4.92 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-25-2003
Reported in : I(2004)ACC794,2005ACJ877
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. The relevant facts of the case as appear from the records are that on 26.11.1993 at about 9.30 hours, one Ujjal Dey being the son of the claimant father was standing on the left side of the National Highway 31 at Tekatull when offending vehicle coming from the Dhupgudi side at a very high speed ran over the said Ujjal Dey as a result whereof he sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to such injuries on the spot. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.2. The claim application was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 30.6.1997 dismissed the application and challenging the same the present appeal was filed.3. Heard Mr. Saidur Rahaman, learned counsel for the appellant, who advanced threefold argument. The first contention of appellant is that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the petition on the ground that the victim was a minor boy aged 8 and his parents w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-20-2003
Reported in : (2004)191CTR(Cal)121,[2004]267ITR754(Cal)
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. The assessee, a public limited company being in need of funds for its increased working capital requirements, made a public issue of its equity shares for raising working capital. In this connection, the assessee incurred expenses of Rs. 9,25,624 which was claimed by it as revenue expenditure as was incurred for the purpose of its business for the assessment year 1987-88.2. The Assessing Officer, by his order dated June 29, 1990, disallowed the said expenditure holding the same to be capital expenditure. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by order dated December 30, 1991, remanded the matter with a direction to examine the order of the Controller of Capital Issues in respect of the said public issue. The Assessing Officer by his fresh order dated July 30, 1992, again held that the expenses were capital in nature.3. Further appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-20-2003
Reported in : (2004)1CALLT378(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This writ petition was filed by Food Corporation of India Officers' Association as petitioner No. 1 and the President of the said Association as petitioner No. 2. In this writ petition Union of India has been made respondent No. 1, the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, respondent No. 2 and the Chairman, Food Corporation of India as respondent No. 3. This writ petition was filed in Computer Section, it came up in the list on 26.6.2003 and was taken for hearing as 'Listed Motion' on 4.7.2003 and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 this Court passed the following order:--2. This writ petition is moved upon notice to the respondents. The following direction is given for filing of affidavit:3. Affidavit-in-opposition by four weeks from date. Affidavit-in-reply bytwo weeks thereafter and the matter to appear in the list as 'AdjournedMotion' eight weeks hence. The post in question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-12-2003
Reported in : III(2004)ACC15,2005ACJ1622,2004(2)CHN370
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. The short question that arises in this case as argued by Mr. Banik is that whether the expression 'legal representative' appearing in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) includes married daughters in order to enable her to get compensation on account of death of her father irrespective of the question whether the daughter was dependant on the victim or not simply because of her being a legal representative. He had relied on various decisions with which we will be dealing with at appropriate stage.2. The learned Counsel for the respondents points out that the legal representative who are dependent on the victim are only entitled to compensation. So far as the right to get compensation either under Section 140 or under Section 166, there is no distinction except the question of establishment of liability which differs in the two kinds of cases. But it is only the dependency, which is the only determining factor on which entitlement to compensation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-25-2003
Reported in : (2003)86ITD135(Kol.)
..... actual cost' for the purposes of depreciation, investment allowance, etc. 18.1. under the existing provisions of section 43(1) of the it act, "actual cost" means actual cost of the assets to the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, ..... court in the case of mcdowell & co. v. cto (1985) 154 itr 148 (sc) is applicable. he accordingly upheld the order of the ao.24. aggrieved by the said order, the assessee took ..... 65,95,198 is net off an amount of rs. 1,25,00,000 being the insurance salvage in this respect, which was received by the assessee during the relevant previous year.1 ..... in favour of others. the assessee renounced her right of all the 710 shares on 12th june, 1956, and realized rs. 45,262.50 when this amount was sought to be wholly taxed as ..... will act in a manner which is not beneficial to him. for the sake of analogy, the basic instinct of a human being is that he loves his life, he will not do anything at the risk of his life unless ..... section 32(1), the amount of rs. 4,95,06,235 has not been considered as an addition to the plant and machinery. (3) it is immaterial whether the borrowed capital is used for acquiring a capital asset and a revenue asset because the act of borrowing capital is distinct from the act of investing the capital for the purpose of acquiring an asset. in this regard reliance has been placed on the decision of the supreme court in india cements ltd. v. cit (1966) 60 itr 52 (sc) and the decision in the case of calcutta electric supply corporation .....
Tag this Judgment!