Reported in : [2007]295ITR293(Mad)
.....which was served on the son-in-law of the assessee who received the notice and later acted as the assessee's authorised representative and in fact the submissions made on behalf of the assessee were signed by the son-in-law. the facts being so the service of notice on the assessee's son-in-law is found to be proper and valid. once the assessee's son-in-law acted as authorised representative it will not be correct to contend that he was not authorised to receive the notice. the assessee's son-in-law also sought for adjournment and the request made in that regard was also signed by him. as the proceedings initiated for revision were going to get barred by limitation on 31-3-2006, the order was passed on 28-3-2006. the assessee's request for grant of time for a month could not be acceded to in view of the limitation involved. however, once the opportunity granted to the assessee was both fair and reasonable, the conclusion of the proceedings on 28-3-2006, does not vitiate the order simply because an adjournment as sought was denied. section 142a is not applicable in the assessee's case. the assessment was reopened only to delete the deduction allowed at 10 per cent, for.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2007Mad240
.....under section 5 of the limitation act. it has been further averred that the second original petition cannot be entertained in view of the fact, that it is barred by limitation.4. mr. ar. l. sunderesan, learned senior counsel for ms. al. gandhimathi, appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that:(a) since the respondent has not established the fact that the original petition that has been filed and returned have been represented on 7-4-2003 and then further allegation that the whereabouts of represented o.p. papers could not be tracted has not been established, the court below should not have condoned the delay of 180 days in preferring the fresh o.p.;(b) section 34(3) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the act') clearly states to set aside the award, the application has to be made within three months from the date of the receipt of the award. further period of 30 days is provided under the proviso if the court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause, from making the application within the said period of three months. thus, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the respondent.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2007Cal90
.....'e' to e3 to this writ petition and to forebear the respondents from enforcing realisation of impugned demand in any manner whatsoever.2. the fact of the ease in a nutshell is this on october 8, 1991 m/s. hari trading company and m/s. laxmi trading company despatched iodised salt consignments from chirai, gujarat to bharampur (west bengal in 30 wagons against bills for rs. 3,20205/- and rs. 2,42,831/- respectively. the railways authority at chirai issued receipts against the loading of such consignments containing endorsements as follows : 'senders weight accepted sm enroute to weigh and advise jointly destination to weight before delivery'. the senders engaged j. b. boda surveyors pvt. ltd., for supervision of crushed salt in bags for human consumption inb. g. wagons and also for weighment the weight of bags at random. thereafter, 24 wagons out of the aforesaid 30 wagons reached the destination slalion at berhampur court when shortage of 1/141 bags of salt were detected and short certificates were issued to that effect. then the petitioners were informed by the station superintendent bharampore court, eastern railway, as per his communication issued under memo no......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007ACJ1495
.....is modified. the claimant shall be entitled to compensation of rs. 1,50,000.9. mr. kamal krishna das, the learned advocate appearing for appellant invites our attention to the fact that he has already put in rs. 25,000, as required under sub-section (1) of section 173 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 at the time of filing of the appeal.10. the insurance company is directed to put in the balance sum of rs. 1,25,000 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application till the actual deposit is made in the tribunal below by account payee cheque in the name of the claimant within six weeks from this date. insurance company shall also pay interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on rs. 25,000 from the date of filing of the application for compensation till the date of deposit of rs. 25,000 in this court.11. the office is directed to release payment of rs. 25,000 in favour of the claimant.12. with the aforesaid directions the appeal is disposed of.13. no separate order is required to be passed in connection with the application for stay and as such, the application is disposed of.14. we make no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)210CTR(Cal)64,[2007]289ITR273(Cal)
.....said scheme of 1998 or to wait till adjudication was made by the appellate authority in the revenue's appeal. the learned judge put emphasis on the fact that the tax calculated and intimated to the appellants on january 28, 1999, was paid without any protest by the appellants and certificates were issued accordingly on february 18, 1999.10 the learned judge in this regard relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of smt. sushila rani v. cit : [2002]253itr775(sc) . relying on the said decision his lordship ultimately held that the determination of tax under section 90(1) once accepted by the assessee, could not be questioned either by the assessee or by the department in the absence of any false declaration. his lordship held that settlement was conclusive and binding upon all concerned.11. being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned single judge the appellant filed the present appeal.12. mr. j.p. khaitan, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal, reiterated his submissions which were advanced before the learned single judge. in addition, mr. khaitan contended before us that assuming the appellant made a mistake.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(2)CHN96
.....mondal narrated the incident to him and subsequently the other two appellants namely jarahim sk. and md. badruddin upon interrogation admitted the fact of firing. according to this witness, he stated before the i.o. that on his interrogation the appellants admitted their guilt. p.w.11is the main i.o. of the case.7. the star witness p.w. 10 says in his evidence that when at about 5 p.m. he with his lorry reached near the telda bridge at some distance from rampurhat three police personnel stopped his vehicle, demanded rs. 5/-from him and he offered rs. 2/- but then they did not accept rs. 2/- and they fired against the other driver whose name has been recorded in the deposition as alabul rahim.8. learned advocates for the appellants argued that having scanned the evidence of p.w.4, p.w.6 and p.w.9 it does not become certain that occurrence took place at telda bridge because as per evidence of p.w.4 they were deputed to childa bridge under g. d. entry no. 87 dated 3.7.1988 and the distance between the childa bridge and the telda bridge is 10 kilometers. childa bridge is on the way between rampurhat and tarapith temple while telda bridge is situated at rampurhat-mollarpur super.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)2CALLT266(HC),(2007)137CTR(Cal)314
.....negligence on the part of the company to pay without just cause has to be established. if the cause offered by the company is arguable, whether on facts or in law, the company court will not assume inability on the part of the company to pay.8. in support of the company's defence, learned counsel submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner to receive maintenance charge under section 5(7) or municipal tax and commercial surcharge under section 5(8) of the said act were vexed questions. a landlord and a tenant may choose to provide for maintenance charge and municipal tax and commercial surcharge in the agreement between them. it was not impermissible for such agreement to dilute the statutory liability of the tenant.9. learned counsel on behalf of the company referred to a decision reported as calcutta gujarati education society v. calcutta municipal corporation : air2003sc4278 and the interpretation of 'rent' therein to suggest that despite the division bench judgments of this court cited on behalf of the petitioner, as to what constituted rent was still open to argument. the old authority of this court reported at pannalal mukherjee v. union of india : air1957cal156 , was.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2007]291ITR401(Cal)
.....the assessee totally suppressed the correspondence exchanged between the parties after january 2003. similarly, the assessee also suppressed the fact that he had already moved this court, before the hearing officer while writing to him seeking for an adjournment on september 16, 2003. it is significant to mention here that the writ petition was affirmed on september 5, 2003.2. the learned judge dismissed the writ petition on two grounds:(i) the writ petitioner suppressed material facts before his lordship by not incorporating the subsequent events in the writ petition.(ii) the subject proceeding could be proceeded with under section 143(2) without considering the amendment and in case such amendment was applicable the plea of limitation was not available to the writ petitioner as the second letter issued on november 12, 2002, was a clarificatory one of the original notice dated october 21, 2002.3. being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned single judge the assessee preferred the instant appeal.4. mr. j.p. kaithan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant before us has contended as follows:(i) the amendment of section 143(2) came up in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(2)CHN630
.....the premises on the basis of permission.5. therefore, there cannot be any dispute about the applicability of section 41 of the said act to the facts of the instant case. a plain reading of section 41 of the said act, as it stands applicable in west bengal, would show that a person who is in occupation of a property by way of permission of another person can also be called upon to show cause as to why he should not be compelled to deliver up the property that may be in dispute.6. the learned advocate for the defendant/petitioner submitted that the permission was given by the plaintiff/opposite party to the defendant/petitioner for the purpose of running a business using the address in question. the said learned advocate submitted that the consent given by the plaintiff/opposite party to the defendant/petitioner was in respect of doing business. according to the said learned advocate such permission does not come under section 41 of the said act since according to the said learned advocate, the permission was in relation to the business and not in relation to any possession of the suit property this court finds it very difficult to accept such argument made on behalf of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(3)CHN545
.....the said school authority also issued an advertisement in the daily newspaper inviting applications from eligible candidates and as a matter of fact, 11 eligible candidates including the existing assistant teachers of the said school with 10 years teaching experience submitted applications in response to the said advertisement. the school authority thereafter constituted a selection committee as per the recruitment rules prevailing at the point of time and issued interview letters to all the 29 candidates directing them to appear before the selection committee on 25th september, 1995.4. on 22nd september, 1995 a title suit was filed before the learned 3rd munsif, krishnanagar, nadia, being title suit no. 142 of 1995 and an application for temporary injunction was also filed in connection with the said title suit. the learned 3rd munsif, krishnanagar while considering the aforesaid application for temporary injunction passed an order restraining the managing committee from holding interview which was scheduled to be held on 25th september, 1995. however, subsequently, on 1st june, 1998, the said learned civil judge, junior division, 3rd court, krishnanagar, nadia upon.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT