Court : Kolkata
W.P.No.1069 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited & Anr. versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3, Kolkata & ORS.For the Petitioners : Mr.J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate Mr.Somak Basu, Advocate For the Respondents : Md.Nizamuddin, Advocate Hearing concluded on : March 17, 2017 Judgment on : May 3, 2017 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- The petitioners challenges the vires of clause (i) of explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in its prospective and retrospective operation. Learner Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that, such clause was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from April 1, 2001. It provides that, the net profit as shown in the Profit and Loss Account for the relevant previous year must be increased by amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset. Learned Senior Advocate for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are taken up together.2. This appeal is at the instance of the Chairman, State Bank of India and others and is directed against an order dated 28th August, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed an application filed by the cross-objector/respondent and set aside the order dated 30th August, 2001 with a direction upon the appellant/Bank to pay 12% interest to the writ- petitioner from the date of filing of the writ-petition on all arrears of pension within six weeks from the said date. His Lordship further directed that the pension month by month should be paid to the writ-petitioner in accordance with the Rules.3. Being dissatisfied, the State Bank Authority has preferred the appeal and the writ-petitioner has filed a cross-objection being dissatisfied with the refusal of grant of pre-proceedings interest as also damages claimed in the writ-application.4. The following facts ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1986Cal185
Manasnath Roy, J.1. This appeal from appellate decree, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th March 1975 and 7th April 1975, made in Title Appeal No. 501 of 1974 by the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore reversing thereby the judgment and decree dated 25th February 19 4, passed in Title Suit No. 68 of 1968 by the learned Munsif, 6th Court, Alipore.2. The concerned suit was one for declaration and injunction and was filed on 7th February 1968, wherein the claim of the plaintiff was that the suit land and other lands belonged to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and by a Registered Deed of partition dated 7th September 1962, between them, the suit property along with other properties were allotted to the defendant No. 2, Kamalesh Kapat and since then, he was in exclusive possession of them. It was further stated that by Kobala dated 5th December 1962, the defandants Nos 3 and 4 purchased the property in suit from the said defendant No. 2, with a condition for reconveyanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal216,71CWN82
ORDERD. Basu, J. 1. As I said in my Order on the application for contempt arising out of the instant proceeding, earlier, the dispute to which the instant proceeding relates has behind it a history of constitutional importance, which must be recounted in order to appreciate the nature of the present proceeding. 2. It is a dispute relating to the division between India and Pakistan of the Berubari Union No. 12, a group of villages lying within the territory of India, for the purpose of ceding half of it to Pakistan in pursuance of the Agreement, which was entered into between the two Governments on the 10th September, 1958. Some doubts having arisen as to whether this could be effected without a proper legislation, the President referred the question for the opinion of the Supreme Court, under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court gave its opinion as reported in : [1960]3SCR250 . The Supreme Court opined that since the Agreement between the two Governments, referred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1954Cal208
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is an application which arises out of Civil Revision Case No. 1888 of 1953. That rule was taken out by the petitioner against the Secretary Board of Secondary Education West Bengal & four members of an 'ad-hoc Committee' appointed by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, to administer the affairs of the Kanchrapara Boys' High School. The short facts are as follows. There is a School at Kanchrapara, called the Kanchrapara Boys' High School. It came into existence in 1949, and provides a High School education for nearly seven hundred refugee boys. The school was given provisional recognition by the University of Calcutta and the recognition was extended from time to time. The school was being run by a Managing Committee and the petitioner was the elected secretary thereof.2. On or about the 2nd June 1953, the first respondent, as the secretary of the Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') wrote to the petitioner, that the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1994]205ITR628(Cal)
Ajoy Nath Ray, J. 1. In this application, the assessee-writ petitioner challenges the notice appearing at page 66 of the writ petition which is addressed to the assessee by the Valuation Officer of the Valuation Cell regarding the assessee's wealth-tax return. This notice has been issued on a reference by the Wealth-tax Officer to the Valuation Officer regarding the valuation for the purposes of wealth-tax of the life-term interest of the assessee in the building No. 5, Middleton Street, Calcutta. 2. The reference by the Wealth-tax Officer to the Valuation Officer had been made under Section 16A(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as it stood at the relevant time. The said portion of the enactment is set out below: ' 16A. Reference to Valuation Officer.--(1) For the purpose of making an assessment (including an assessment in respect of any assessment year commencing before the date of coming into force of this section) under this Act, the Wealth-tax Officer may refer the valuation of an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1937Cal562
S.K. Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and it arises under the following circumstances: The suit was for setting aside a certificate sale held by the Collector for arrears of cess on the allegation that the sale was fraudulently brought about by defendant 1 in collusion with the peons of the Collectorate. There is a further prayer that if the Court should decide that the sale is not liable to be set aside, a decree may be passed directing defendant 1 to return the properties to the plaintiffs or, failing that, to pay a sum of one lac of rupees to the plaintiffs as compensation. Para. 8 of the plaint runs thus:For the purposes of the jurisdiction of this Court this suit is valued at Rs, 1,00,000 and the property in suit being a revenue-paying Mahal this plaint in this suit ia filed by paying a court-fee of Rs. 1,020 on Rs. 15,505-5-0 as being ten times the revenue thereof amounting to Rupees 1,550-8-6 per year under Section 7; Clause (v), Court-fees Act.2. Thereupon the qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal406
ORDERMonjula Bose, J.1. This is an application for amendment of the plaint which has been instituted on May 28. 1971 inter alia for a declaration that the purported lease dated June 23, 1964 referred to in paragraph 20 (a) of the plaint, the purported agreement of tenancy dated May 1, 1964, referred to in paragraph 20 (b) of the plaint, and the purported tenancy referred to in paragraph 20 (c) of the plaint are null and void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs. Alternatively, a declaration that the sale of the premises No. 2, Chingrihatta Lane, Calcutta by the defendant 1 to the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and one Golam Rasul since deceased is null and void and for other reliefs The petitioner's case in the plaint in short is that they are absolute owners of premises No. 2, Chingrihatta Lane. Calcutta, which premises was the subject-matter of various proceedings and purchased by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and one Golam Rasul (since deceased) in execution proceedings at an aucti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. This writ application has been filed by 60 writ petitioners jointly, who are retired employees of South Bengal State Transport Corporation being a Corporation created under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 by the State of West Bengal retaining its full control over the management, function and finance. Out of the said 60 writ petitioners, 36 writ petitioners retired before 1st April, 1997 and the rest after 1st April, 1997. The writ petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:a) Rule NISI upon the Respondents calling upon them to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not issue directing them to forbear from giving effect to and/or continuing to give effect to and/or giving further effect to and/or withdraw and/or cancel and/or rescind the impugned decision, if any, taken or followed for not paying pension to the petitioners and/or the persons who retired from service of the Respondent Corporation and are entitled to pension under the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1959Cal690,63CWN782,(1959)IILLJ603Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is a petition by Shree Shew Sakti Oil Mills Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the award of the Second Industrial Tribunal, made on the 24th June, 1957 on the point of reference whether the dismissal of Shri Puranmal koyal was justified and, if so, to what relief was he entitled. 2. The challenge to the award is made on a new and important point. The original order of reference by the Government was made on the 19th April, 1956 to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. While the reference was pending before the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, the Government, by an order dated the 9th March, 1957. withdrew the reference from the Fifth Industrial Tribunal and referred the same dispute on the same point to the Second Industrial Tribunal. The petitioners challenge this order of the 9th March, 1957, withdrawing the reference from the Fifth Industrial Tribunal and making a reference to the Second Indus...
Tag this Judgment!