Kolkata Court March 1988 Judgments

Angus Company Limited Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1988(38)ELT20(Cal)

Baboo Lall Jain, J.1. The Court: This is an application made by Angus Company Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the order dated May 22, 1987 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs and the demand made pursuant thereto be rescinded. The petitioner is also praying for an appropriate writ to nullify the effect of the impugned order and/or to prohibit the Customs Authorities from giving effect thereto. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 27th November, 1976, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner and why penalties should not be imposed on the petitioner under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, in terms of the guarantee furnished by the petitioner under Section 42 of the said Act. It is to be noted that 1472 cases of vegetable oil were found to be short in the consignment. This was a cargo which was shipped by Lutheran World Relief Inc. to the Food Corporation of India. This cargo consi...

Curickshank and Co. Ltd. Vs. Appellate Collector of Customs

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1988(36)ELT246(Cal)

P.C. Barooah, J.1. By an order dated 24-8-1980 Shri P.N. Malhotra Deputy Collector of Customs, Manifest Clearance Department imposed a penalty of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs) on the petitioners under the provisions of Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the alleged short-landing of 33 pallets of Low Density Polyethene Film against line No. 26, ex; M.V. Sikiang. In coming to the conclusion the officer relied on an Outturn Report of the Calcutta Port Trust dated 23-12-1977 a copy of which is Annexure 'B' to the petition.2. Against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal and Shri Tarun Roy, the Appellate Collector of Customs by an order dated 2-9-1981 dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed by the Deputy Collector. The order of the Appellate Collector a copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition is the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule.3. I have heard Mr. Ajit Roy Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mitter on behalf of ...

B.K. Gupta Vs. the Lt. Governor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1989Cal89

A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. Theappellant, who is a non-law person and is appearing in person, has presented his case with appreciable clarity and with good deal of dexterity so much so that it has brought back to our mind the observation of Vivian Bose, J. in Seksaria Cotton Mills, : [1953]4SCR825 to the effect that the lawyers, the more learned they are in law, become more puzzled as to what advice they should give and more bewildered at the meaning of plain English words, while persons, not learned in law, may not suffer from any such confusion and he wilderment.2. Admittedly, the appellant's land has been acquired by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After the Collector made this Award for the acquisition, the appellant got the matter referred to the Land Acquisition Judge under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act and urged that even though according to the relevant notification and declaration only 144 sq. ft. of land belonging ...

Gobardhan Patra Vs. Ashutosh Nandy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1988)2CALLT199(HC)

Susanta Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioner/defendants have filed the present revisional application challenging Order No. 115, dated 8.9.86 passed by the learned munsif, 7th Court at Howrah in title suit No. 60 of 1971. An application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the defendants for recalling the order passed by the learned munsif on 4.2.85. It was submitted that the application for amendment as prayed for by the plaintiff was allowed by Order No. 81, dated 4.2.85. In fact, the leave was granted by the appellate court to allow the plaintiff to seek amendment and thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No time was stipulated by the appellate court and accordingly under Order 6, Rule 18 it would be clear that if a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or, if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen d...

Miss Amiya Pradhan Vs. the Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1988)2CALLT269(HC)

Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. Two points are to be determined in the present writ petition as to whether despite of the selection and recommendation of the West Bengal Public Service Commission, the promotion of a Government servant can be denied on the 'plea' of existence of Departmental Proceeding, by issuance of some sort of slip shod charges against the said employee, who is otherwise eligible for such promotion.2. Secondly, this court has to determine whether the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the writ petition cannot be disposed of before actual retirement of the writ petitioner for no fault of the writ petitioner and whether any pecuniary relief can be granted to the petitioner, in such circumstances.3. The facts of the present writ petition are, as follows : The petitioner Miss Amiya Pradhan obtained B.Sc. (Hons.) in Nursing in the year 1953 from the College of Nursing, Delhi, and was appointed initially as a 'State Nurse' in the M...

Indian Tea Packeting Industries and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1988(18)ECC180

M.N. Roy, J.1. Since common questions of law and fact arose in the appeal being F.M.A. No. 4198 of 1985 and other appeals being F.M.A. No, 95 and F.M.A. No. 96 of 1986 and all the appeals excepting the one in F.M.A.T. No. 2338 of 1983 which was against the determination of D.K. Sen, were directed against the determinations made by Suhas Chandra Sen, J. in the respective civil rules on diverse dates, they were heard together by consent of parties. The other assigned appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 2338 of 1983, which arose out of the judgment and order dated 14th July, 1983, passed in C.O. No. 15368(W) of 1982, was also heard immediately after the first group of appeals and along with them, as similar questions of fact and law, were involved for determination.2. Admittedly, the Central Excises And Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) had undergone an amendment in or about March 1986 which and thereby 'packaging' has been included within the excisibility of goods including ...

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Baijayanti Mukherjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2(1988)ACC271

Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This revisional application is directed against order No. 52 dated 8-9-87 pasted by the Additional District Judge, 13th Court Alipore functioning as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) of 24 Parganas in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 425 of 1978. By their order the learned Tribunal rejected the contention of the National Insurance Co. Ltd., the petitioner herein that in view of the notification dated 7-1-87 issued by the Government of West Bengal the Tribunal constituted for the city of Calcutta could only proceed With the case as the alleged accident took place within the city of Calcutta.2. Even if we assume for argument's sake that the above contention of the petitioner is correct, we are not inclined to disturb the proceeding which is pending for the last 10 years. We therefore regularise the procedural if any by invoking and exercising our powers under Section 24(l)(b)(iii) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is thus dis...

Dena Bank Vs. Amiya Kumar Dey

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1988)2CALLT95(HC),92CWN1100

G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th January, 1987 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Civil Order No. 15936 (W) of 1986. The aforesaid Civil Order No. 15936 (W) of 1986 arose out of an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the writ-petitioner, Sri Amiya Kumar Dey. It appears that Sri Dey was an employee of Dena Bank and in the year 1974, he was holding the post of Branch Manager, Brabourne Road Branch of the said Bank. Sri Dey was placed under suspension on 23rd October, 1974 and a charge-sheet was also issued by the said Bank to Sri Dey. In reply to the said charge-sheet, Sri Dey submitted his written explanation on 28th November, 1974. Sri Dey also requested the administration of the Dena Bank for early disposal of the enquiry by an imperial body. The Dena Bank Administration, however, informed Sri Dey on 17th January, 1975 that his explanation to the charge-sheet was not satisfactory and a departmental enquiry would be...

Sm. Rajmohini Jhamb Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1988CriLJ1435

Jyotirindra Nath Hore, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 for quashing the proceeding pending before the learned Senior Municipal and Metropolitan Magistrate, 1st Court, Calcutta being Case No. 3007B of 1981.2. On 26-9-81 Dr. S.S. Mondal, Sanitary Officer and Borough Health Officer, Corporation of Calcutta, filed a complaint against petitioner Sm. Rajmohini Jhamb under Section 437(1)(b) read with Section 537 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 before the learned Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta ' for using or permitting to be used premises No. 1, Alipore Road, Calcutta for selling storing, packing, pressing, cleaning, preparing or manufacturing by any process whatever workplace run with electricity which is in the opinion of the Corporation dangerous to life, health or property and likely to create nuisance without a licence from the Commissioner for the year ending on 31st March, 1981 in contravention of Section 437 of Act XXXIII (W.B.C.) of 1951.'3. On re...

Express Bottlers Services Private Ltd. Vs. Pepsico Inc. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Pratibha Bonnerjea, J.This is an application by the petitioner under Section 46 of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act 1958 for removal of the marks 'Pepsi Cola' 'Pepsi' and 'Pepsico' from the Register and for rectification of the Register. The respondent No. 1 is the registered proprietor of the said marks the particulars whereof are set out below:--Trade MarkDatePlace of Registration(a)Pepsi ColaRegistered No. 8155311.6.1943Calcutta Trade Mark Registry Office.(b)PepsiRegistration No. 1732808.5.1957-- do --(c)PepsicoRegistration No. 2407408.3.1967New Delhi Trade Marks Registry.The petitioner claims to be a manufacturer of ingredients and salts etc. for manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages, aerated water under the mark 'Pepsi'. The petitioner also claims to be selling beverages under the said mark and labels and the respondent No. 3 Pepsi Soda Water Co. is one of the franchise holders of the petitioner and as such Pepsi Soda also manufactures salts, beverages under the mark 'Pepsi'. Th...