Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-29-2004
Reported in : [2005]142TAXMAN446(Cal)
ORDER BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONPower to reviseSettlement Commission has no power to exercise the power of rectification under section 154, except in exercise of power inherent in it to do justice in a case where because of its action a party is not injured or in other words to rectify the injury caused to the party by reason of an order.Income Tax Act, 1961 s.154 Rectification--POWER OFWhen can be usedHeld: Section 154 only confers power of rectification if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Limit of rectification can be stretched only to the field where the mistake is glaring, obvious, patent and apparent on the face of the record. Glaring, obvious, patent and apparent mistakes are those for which no investigation into facts or determination of law or discussion of debatable points are involved, to establish which long drawn argument would not be necessary and in respect of which no two opinions are possible.Income Tax Act, 1961 s.154 In the Calcutta High Court Dili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-14-2004
Reported in : (2005)1CALLT247(HC),(2005)193CTR(Cal)430,[2004]271ITR514(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The decision by the learned single judge dated April 25, 2003 (reported in [2003] 263 ITR 186), is under challenge before us. The learned single judge had found that rectification sought for in this case by the Department does not come within the narrow scope and ambit of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the reasons given in the said judgment. The Department has preferred this appeal in this court.Appellant's points :2. Mr. Shome, learned senior counsel for the appellant, had pointed out that the law with regard to the power of the Settlement Commission in waiving interest is settled in the case of Anjum Mohammed Hussain Ghaswala, In re : [1998]230ITR1(SC) . It is pointed out that the Commission had no power to waive interest chargeable under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C. Therefore, it is a case covered under the provisions of Section 154. Elaborate submission was made by Mr. Shome with regard to the applicability of the various decisions cited by Mr. R. N. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-09-2004
Reported in : AIR2005Cal145,2005(2)CHN575
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This appeal has been filed from an order dated 2nd April, 2004 passed by the learned Judge of the First Court whereby the learned Judge disposed of all the three interlocutory applications being G.A. No. 4512 of 2002 dated 25th July, 2002, G.A. No. 3462 of 2002 dated 28th August, 2002 and G.A. No. 4513 of 2002 dated 8th October, 2002. While disposing of those applications, the learned Judge ultimately directed the respondents to restore the condition of plaintiffs' roof-top cooling towers and the western side ground floor of the suit premises as was existing on the date of institution of the suit within three weeks from date. The defendants were also restrained from interfering, in any manner, with the plaintiffs' properties in the suit premises including the properties, conditions whereof were directed to be restored in terms of the injunction order. The learned Judge also directed that the said interim order shall remain in force till the disposal of the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-18-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN447,2005(30)PTC140(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 11th February, 2004 passed by the learned Judge of the first Court refusing to grant injunction on its application (G. A. No. 2709 in C. S. No. 213 of 2003) filed alleging infringement of its design registered under No. 183322. The appellant's prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by another learned Judge on 18th August, 2003 and His Lordship directed the matter to be considered upon affidavits.2. In respect of its design, the appellant obtained a certificate of registration on 2th January, 2001, from the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark, and the certificate is dated 28th August, 2000, and numbered 183322. Admittedly the certificate was granted under the provisions of the Designs Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'old Act') and the Designs Rule, 1933. The design was in respect of figured glass and it was stated in the certificate that the design will subsist for 5 years from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-14-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN99,2004CriLJ4023
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. 1. The hearing stems from 14 sets of appeals preferred by 19 convicts against the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence passed on 31.08.2002 by Mr. Intaj Ali Shah, ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case Nos. XVII/March/2002 and XLVIII/May, 2002 arising out of G. R. Case No. 1392/2001.2. A thumbnail sketch of the prosecution case is that Manas Chaubey, younger son of ex-leader of C.P.I. and M.P. Narayan Chaubey was murdered in the open daylight on 27.06.1999 by some antisocial elements with the assistance of local mafia B. Rambabu, for which 15 persons along with the said B. Rambabu are facing trial in the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, and B. Rambabu and the people of his group became annoyed with the defacto-complainant's close friend Gautam Chaubey -- elder brother of Manas and used to threat him with dire consequences. On 11.09.2001 at about 8/6-30 p.m. as per previous talks with accused Satyen Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-19-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN187
Gorachand De, J.1. Professor (Dr.) Sukumar Mukherjee and Professor (Dr.) Baidyanath Halder were found guilty under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days by the judgment and order dated 29.5.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in Complaint Case No. C-3882 of 1998. The learned Magistrate, however, found professor (Dr..) Abani Roychowdhury not guilty under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, acquitted him.2. Against the said order, professor Mukherjee filed Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2002 and professor Halder filed Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge at Alipore, whereas the complainant, Mr. Malay Kumar Ganguly, on the other hand, filed a revisional application being C.R.R. No. 1856 of 2002 for enhancement of the punishment inflicted upon prof...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-11-2004
Reported in : (2004)3CALLT71(HC),2004(29)PTC665(Cal),[2004]51SCL498(Cal)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 213 of 2003 has taken out this interlocutory application (G.A. No. 2709 of 2003) dated July 31st, 2003. The prayers in the suit are as follows :--'(a) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and assigns and each of them from in any way infringe (sic) or causing, enabling others to infringe the design of KARATACHI glass registered under No. 183322 by using the glass design as shown in annexure 'B' to the plaint;(b) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and assigns and each of them from in any way infringe (sic) or causing, enabling others to infringe the copyright in the artistic work by making three dimensional reproduction thereof in glasses;(c) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and assigns and each of them from in any way passing off design glasses of the plaintiff by manufacturing and/or selling glass having...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-05-2004
Reported in : (2004)1CALLT554(HC)
P.K. Biswas, J.1. This is to consider an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of one Jatan Lal Parekh and two others as petitioners seeking for quashing of the proceeding being Golabari P.S. Case No. 10 dated 8,1.96 under Sections 427/395/397/448/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code (G.R. 97/96) pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Sadar and/or setting aside the order dated 09.06.2000 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah Sadar in the aforesaid case.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under:One complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was lodged by Gangadhar Sarkar as de facto complainant, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on 04.01.96 alleging, inter alia, that the complainant, namely Gangadhar Sarkar, is a monthly tenant in respect of the area of 300 sq. ft. in respect of the premises No. 35, Dr. Abani Dutta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-12-2004
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT57(HC),2004(4)CHN148,[2004(102)FLR436],(2004)IIILLJ347Cal
Indira Banerjee, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the action of the respondents in not fixing the subsistence allowance of the petitioner on the basis of the present revised salary that the petitioner would have got had the petitioner not been suspended from service, in terms of the Indian Banks Association circular dated 11th August, 1998.2. By an order dated 26th August, 1987 the petitioner was suspended from service as Chief Manager of the Old Court House Street Branch of the respondent Bank.3. At the time of his suspension, the petitioner was getting a salary of Rs. 2,992.14 per month. The subsistence allowance of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1,496.14, being 50 per cent of the salary that the petitioner was getting at the time of his suspension. On expiry of three months from the date of suspension, the subsistence allowance was enhanced to 75% of Rs. 2,992.14p.4. The petitioner has been kept under suspension for over 16 years. It is contended that the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-29-2004
Reported in : 2005(2)CHN165
..... must withstand the test of article 14. any overgenerous approach to a section of the beneficiaries, if it has the effect of destroying another's right ..... no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by such classification. the classification is patently ultra vires and violative of article 14 of the constitution of india.111. the supreme ..... made subject to any other permission that might be required and in accordance with law.39. the question is whether candidates who competed in the common joint entrance examination held on 3rd and ..... its earlier decision in the case of chitra ghosh v. union of india, reported in : [1970]1scr413 , the supreme court held that 'the test laid down for determining the validity ..... reason of the delay in obtaining permission from the medical council of india to admit students. at the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the supreme court did not restrict the benefit of its ..... capitation fee. it is doubtful whether the state can either directly or indirectly resort to acts detrimental to public interest which private institutions are prevented from doing.104. the state ..... the academic year 2003-2004 were ignored.35. it is submitted that only 105 of the 150 candidates of the list published on 26th september, 2003 took admission. the rest of the seats are being ..... in the qualifying examination and secure 50% marks in physics, chemistry and biological science taken together. in addition the candidates must find place in the merit list by securing not less than .....
Tag this Judgment!