Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-07-1999
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT346(HC)
R. Pal, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from three orders dated 18th May 1998, 18th January 1999 and 21st January 1999. All three orders were passed in connection with an application made by the respondent No.1 under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), The orders were passed in the background of the facts which are briefly noted.2. The appellant company was granted the right to develop land on Tollygunge Circular Road by establishing a multistoried commercial complex (hereafter referred to as the complex) by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. Under this agreement which is dated 18th June, 1987, after the existing stall holders were relocated in the complex, the balance area would be at the disposal of the appellant. The appellant would be entitled to allot the balance area to prospective lessees even before the completion of construction. The Corporation would grant leases to such leassees as would be selected by the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-06-1999
Reported in : AIR2000Cal148,(2000)2CALLT56(HC)
V. K. Gupta, J. 1.This appeal has been filed by the Union of India and General Manager, Eastern Railway against the Judgment dated 25th September, 1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in AP No. 161 of 1998 whereby, applications filed under sections 10 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 (1996 Act for short) have been allowed and the learned single Judge has directed that the matter be referred to the Chief Justice of the High Court for appointing 5 several-sole Arbitrators in terms of section 11 of 1996 Act in respect of the Contract Agreements relating to the jurisdiction of 5 Courts at Howrah, Burdwan, Bolpur, Suri and the High Court of Calcutta.2. At the very outset the respondents in the appeal have raised the basic question of maintainability of the appeal, relying upon section 37 of 1996 Act. The contention of the respondents is that in view of the clear language employed in section 37 of 1996 Act, no appeal lies against an order passed under sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-01-1999
Reported in : (2000)75ITD484(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the CIT(A) order dt. 30th August, 1996 for the asst. yr. 1990-91 where the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty imposed by the AO under ss. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running a hospital-cum-nursing home in Calcutta. The assessee has two types of doctors engaged in the Institute. The first category of the doctors are the regular employees of the Institute and their service conditions are governed by the appointment order and instructions as mentioned at pp.67 and 68 of the paper book. Another category of doctors are called visiting doctors and they are specialists in their fields and have their own practice/engagement. These doctors applied and were selected after interview. Their appointment is governed by a separate order mentioned at pp. 14 and 15 of the paper book for a period of one year.Accordingly, they are called as honorary visiting doctors and were entitled for the hon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-01-1999
Reported in : [2001]75ITD484(Cal)
ORDERDr. S. Chandra, J. M.This is an appeal filed by the department against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 30-8-1996 for the assessment year 1990-91 where the Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under sections 201(1) and 201 (1A) of the Income Tax Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running a Hospital-Cum-Nursing Home in Calcutta. The assessee has two types of Doctors engaged in the institute. The first category of the Doctors are the regular employees of the institute and their service conditions are governed by the appointment order and instructions as mentioned at pages 67 and 68 of the paper book. Another category of Doctors are called visiting Doctors and they are specialists in their fields and have their own practice/engagement. These Doctors applied and were selected after interview. Their appointment is governed by a separate order mentioned at pages 14 and 15 of the paper book for a period of one year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-13-1999
Reported in : (2000)2CALLT105(HC),2000(1)CHN173
S.B. Sinha, J.1. In this appeal the vires of section 47A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by the State of West Bengal is in question.2. The petitioners are landholders. They intended to convey same properties which required registration, the consideration wherefor was fixed at Rs. 1,80.000/-. However, In view of the provisions of section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the market value of the property was fixed at Rs. 5,65,000/- and the Registering authority directed them to pay the deficit stamp duty calculated on the basis thereof.3. Thereafter these writ applications have been filed.4. Mr. P.K. Roy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, has drawn this Court's attention to Entry 44 of List III, Entry 63 of List II and Entry 91 of List 1 of the 7th Schedule appended to the Constitution of India and submitted that keeping In view the aforementioned entries it Is absolutely clear that whereas; Entry 91 List 1 and En...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-28-1999
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT7(HC)
R. Pal, J1. This matter has been assigned to this Bench at the instance of the learned single Judge on the ground that the issues involved in the matter are very Important and require more authoritative pronouncement on the subject.2. Questions have been formulated by the learned single Judge by his order dated 18th February, 1999 for determination of the larger Bench--(a) whether the appeal was maintainable under section 116 of the Patents Act, 1970 (referred to as the Act); and (b) whether the order of the Controller dismissing appellant's application under section 135 of the Act was in confirmity with the letter and spirit of section 133 of the Act or not.3. We have taken up the first question at the outset before addressing ourselves to the merits of the matter. The facts briefly are that the applicant had applied on 31st March, 1999 In Italy for grant of a patent. Italy was declared a convention country as far as India was concerned on 3rd January, 1995. On 15th March 1995 an appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-10-1999
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT397(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against an Order dated 31st July, 1996 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd court, Allpore in proceedings under section 28 of the Specific Relief Act filed by the Respondents in this appeal. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal may be stated as herelnbelow:The Appealant Tivoli Park Apartments (Pvt) Ltd., a Company Incorporated under the Companies Act filed Title Suit No. 176 of 1981 in the court of learned Assistant District Judge, Allpore on 29th August, 1981 wherein a decree of Specific Performance in respect of an agreement executed on 16th August, 1980 was prayed for by the Appellant (Plaintiff in the suit). The subject matter of the aforesaid Suit and the dispute in the present appeal both relate to a piece ofland in premises No. 225, A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta. The Respondents in this appeal are the Trustees and Shebaits of the Trust Estate of Raja Rajendra Mallick Bahadur. On 25.11.60 a lease in respect of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-19-1999
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT230(HC)
The Court 1. The appellant manufactures ultra marine indigo (neel) both in llqutd and powder form under the trade name of Robin Blue (referred to as the product). The product is used for whitening fabric. The respondent No. I also sells a whitening agent which is an 'Insta violate concentrate' under the trade name 'Ujala'. The respondent No.2 is the respondent No. 1's advertising agency.2. This is the third round in a tussle between the respondent No. 1 and the appellant with regard to the advertisements issued by the respondent No.1 to promote its -product. The first was in respect of a printed advertisement which was in Bengali. The Advertisement gave reasons why neel should never be used. This advertisement was the subject matter of a suit in this court. An exparte interim order was passed restraining the publication of the advertisement. This was confirmed after the filing of affidavits on 24th March, 1998. According to the respondent No.1, pursuant to this order that particular ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-12-1999
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT347(HC)
R. Pal, J.1. The questions involved in this appeal are whether the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code as amended. In 1976 apply to the Original Side of this court and, if so, what is the effect of such application. Is an order which is passed without complying with Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code void ?2. The questions have arisen in connection with ex parte ad interim orders passed by the learned single' Judge taking interlocutory matters on 8th March 1999 and 15th March 1999. Both the orders were passed on te application of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 filed a suitagainst the appellant and the respondent No. 2 claiming inter alia a decree for Rs. 5,00,52,810 on account of hire instalments in respect of live wing turbine generators. According to the respondent No. 1 It had advanced an amount of Rs.5,15,00,000 to the appellant and the respondent No. 2 to purchase the five wind turbine generators whlc were inturn hired out by the respodent No. 1 to appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-06-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)ARBLR241(Cal)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 10-8-1994 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellant purported to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. 2. The fact of the matter briefly stated is as follows : A partnership firm in the name of Anandram Gajadhar was established as far back as in 1924. Deeds of reconstitution of partnership were executed by the parties from time to time and admittedly the last deed of partnership was executed on 7-3-1940. The partnership firm consisted of seven partners, namely, Gajadhar Jaipuria, Puranmal Jaipuria, Mangturam Jaipuria, Vikram Jaipuria, Motilal Jaipuria, Ramnarayan Ojha and Shiv Narayan Poddar. 3. On or about 15-12-1941, an agreement was entered into by and between the partners of the said partnership firm wherein it had been stated that any work done or to be done or will be donein the name of any partner or partners or any other...
Tag this Judgment!