SANJIB BANERJEE, KAUSIK CHANDA
Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Vodafone Idea Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kausik Chanda, J. - This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated May 03, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the demands for permission fee and licence fee under Sections 202 and 203 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") raised by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") against the writ petitioner-respondents ("writ petitioners" for short).
2. The writ petitioners carry on business of providing mobile telephone service to consumers, inter alia, within the municipal limits of the Corporation. The Corporation by a letter dated February 09, 2009, raised a demand against the writ petitioners for payment of Rs.6,960/- on account of licence fee and advertisement tax under Sections 203 and 204 of the Act respectively in respect of glow signs displayed by the writ petitioners. Again, by two letters dated February 23, 2009 and May 18, 2009 the Corporation further raised demands of Rs. 15,18,123/- and Rs. 24,46,409/-, respectively, for permission fee under Section 202, licence fee under Section 203 and advertisement tax under Section 204 of the Act for display of
Calcutta Municipal Corpn. -vs- Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd.
Calcutta Soft Drinks Private Limited -vs- Calcutta Municipal Corporation
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments -vs- Sri lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt
Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners Association -vs- Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad
State of Tamil Nadu vs- TVL. South Indian Sugar Mills Association
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.