Kolkata Court December 1996 Judgments

Smt. Jyotsna Mal Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)1CALLT346(HC),1997CriLJ3156

Nisith Kumar Batabyal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.94 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tamluk, Dist. Midnapur convicting the appellant for an offence under Section. 302/201 of the IPC and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for life in Sessions Trial No. 1(1)/93, arising out of G.R. Case No. 492 of 1985. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that Smt Jyotsna Mai worked in the house of one Sachin Mondal as a maid-servant. Soon after her arrival in the house, troubles started between Gita Rani, deceased wife of Sachin Mondal and Smt. Jyotsna Mal who is the appellant here. On 31st May 1985, at Night, Gita Rani was murdered and her dead-body was thrown into the river Keleghai flowing by the side of Sachin's house. On the following day, the dead body of Gita Rani Mondal was found floating near the sluice gate of a canal connected with the river. The further prosecution case is that the appellant made an Extra-Judicial Confess...

Development Consultants Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Gift-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)61ITD119Cal

1. The appeal is directed against the assessment of a sum of Rs. 1 crore to gift-tax by invoking section 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.2. The assessee is a public limited company. It is engaged in business as consulting engineers having its business spread all over the country and abroad. Its business grew and expanded multi-fold. It was, therefore, experiencing difficulties in getting accommodation to conveniently carry on the increased scale of operations. It, therefore, desired to have a building of its own. Towards this end it made application to the Government of West Bengal for allotment of land in Salt Lake City, Calcutta. By letter dated 24-8-1981, the assessee was allotted about 2 acres of land on lease for a period of 999 years on payment of Salami at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per cotta "for construction of their proposed office building". The assessee was also called upon to pay total Salami amount immediately.3. In the meantime, there was some rethinking and it was felt b...

Sm. Sushila Singh Alias Sumila Singha Vs. Sm. Asima Bose

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)1CALLT503(HC)

Sudhendu Nath Mallick, J. 1. The instant second appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 29-9-1983 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nadia in title appeal No. 37 of 1983 reversing those dated January 21, 1983 passed by the learned Munsif, Nabadwip in Title Suit No. 65 of 1981. 2. The plaintiff/respondent brought the above suit against the present defendant/appellant for eviction under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act on ground of default and reasonable requirement for building and re-building. 3. The specific case on ground of default was that the defendant/ appellant did not pay any rent from the month of Aswin 1384 B.S. to Jaistha 1388 B.S. The trial court dismissed the suit on both the grounds. The trial court's findings on the ground of default are quoted below for future reference. 'Considering the chalans I find that the defendant has deposited the monthly rent from the month of Aswin, 1384 B.S. to Sraban, 1388 B.S. with...

Ashit Ghosh and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1997CriLJ1318

ORDER1. A decision of the apex Court by its judicial implosion in Salauddin Abdul Samad Sheikh v. State of Marahashtra, 1996 SCC (Cri) 198 : (1996 Cri LJ 1368) has made to be the subject matter of debate at the bar over the legitimacy of fixation of outer limit in an anticipatory bail by the Court, if in agreement with the judicial precedents and law. Ultimately, the above decision has turned to an explosion about the concept, aim and object of the anticipatory bail.2. The twin question that showed its head in the decision under criticism is whether anticipatory bail could be granted in a non-bailable offence after submission of charge-sheet while the other dealt with the permissibility fixation of outer limit in granting anticipatory bail. So far as the former is concerned, we have answered the issue in detail, since we have copiously dealt with it in Bimal Adak v. State where a batch of applications was dismissed on merit, by our order dated 8-10-1996. Therefore, we safely keep ourse...

S.K. SamsudIn Vs. Ravikant and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1997CriLJ1603

ORDERArun Kumar Dutta, J.1. The petitioner by his instant application for contempt has alleged that the Contemners-Opposite parties herein have wilfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the Order dated 14th November, 1995 passed in C.O. NO. 9736 (W) of 1994, in the facts and circumstances and manner indicated therein. By the aforesaid order dated 14th November, 1995, passed by me in the aforesaid C. O. No. 9736( W) of 1994, the impugned order dated 18-7-94, being Annexure 'E' to the Writ application, was quashed, and the respondents therein, more particularly, the R. T. A., Howrah, were/was directed to consider the Writ Petitioner's prayer for Temporary Permit in respect of the route in question, Howrah Railway Station to Boga, and dispose of his application therefore in the light of and within the ambit and scope of the aforesaid orders dated 14-6-89 and 18-9-89, passed by the Transport Department, Govt. of West Bengal,' after giving him (petitioner) reasonable opportunity of ...

In Re: Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1999]98CompCas496(Cal)

Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. 1. This is an application for approval of the scheme of amalgamation between Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd., the transferor-company and Hindustan Lever Ltd., the transferee-company. Both the transferor and the transferee are subsidiaries of Unilever plc., a very large multi-national corporation. Both the transferor and the transferee are under a common management and have several common directors.2. The registered office of the transferor is in Calcutta and the registered office of the transferee is in Bombay. In pursuance of orders passed by the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts respectively, meetings have been held of the shareholders of the transferor and the transferee-company.3. The contention of Mr. Sarkar, the learned advocate for the petitioner is that after the holding of such meetings on the application of the transferee for sanction by the Bombay High Court, the scheme of amalgamation has already been approved by the Bombay High Court which has also record...

Ananda Damani Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

ORDERS.B. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of and/ or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forebear from giving effect to the purported order dated 5th January, 1995, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to be detained under the provisions of The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner filed an application for self-same reliefs on 7th December, 1995 and by an order dated 8th December, 1995, this Court passed the following order :-Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this application is permitted to be withdrawn as has been prayed for by Mr. Panja, learned Senior Counsel - appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this Court afresh in the event any fresh cause of action arises. This order also shall not stand in the way of the concerned respondents t...

Sri Sri Raghunath Jew Thakur and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)2CALLT112(HC)

Debi Prasad Sarkar-II, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution directed against the order No. 22 passed on 19.5.1984 in Misc. appeal No. 16T of 1981 by the Additional District Magistrate (L.R), Midnapore affirming the order of the Settlement Officer, B Camp, Contai in 7A Case No. 318/14T/80. The property in question originally belonged to Upendra Nath Sahoo who made an endowment deed in the year 1950 in favour of Sri Sri Raghunath Jew Thakur and Sri Sri Chandi Thakurani and appointed his eldest son Barendra Nath Sahoo, a Sebait of the said deity with the direction that Seba Puja should be performed with the usufructs of the property and the same should not be utilised for personal use.2. There was a proceeding under Section 6(1) of the Estate Acquisition Act and the Revenue Officer after perusing the documents and other materials came to the finding on 12.6.1958 that the total land viz. 22.14 acres constituted a true and absolute debuttar and was entitled to g...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. G.D. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1998(59)ECC120,1998(100)ELT24(Cal)

U.C. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Trial Judge whereby the learned Trial Judge has been pleased to allow the writ application. The contextual facts reveal that for some time past disputes and differences were raised as regards classification of a product named 'Boroline'. Dispute started as early as 1961 and continued right upto this date from time to time. The learned Trial Judge relying upon a judgment of Allahabad High Court (Abdul Mohammed and Ors. v. The State) reported in 1977 Cri. L.J. 1325, came to the conclusion that 'Boroline' is essentially a drug and the newly introduced explanation to the Tariff Item 14F cannot have any bearing on the question as to whether Boroline is a drug or cosmetic product. In terms of the aforesaid Judgment, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to record that the question has been gone into in great length by and between the parties before the departmental authorities and also before this Court and strong reli...

Sri Kartic Ch. Baroyee Vs. Sri Kashi Nath Mondal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)2CALLT126(HC)

Debi Prasad Sarkar-II, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against order No. 5 dated 1.10.1994 passed by the Munsif, 1st Court, Barasat in T.S. No. 424 of 1994. The learned advocate for the petitioner is present and made his submission in support of his application. The affidavit of service is filed, let it be kept with the record. According to the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner is a tenant under the opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit as mentioned above, claiming for declaration and injunction etc. restraining the defendant from disconnecting the electric line and water connection. The suit is pending even now but It is alleged that in the meantime on 21.9.1994 the petitioner was dispossessed from the suit property forcibly by the opposite party No. 1- landlord. So, the petitioner filed a petition before the trial court to restore possession under Section 151 CPC with...