Kolkata Court August 1997 Judgments

Madan Mohan Prasad Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, Coal India Limi ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)1CALLT4(HC),1998LabIC938

1. The Court--The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Senior Mining Engineer/Safety officer in the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. The petitioner was in the pay-scale of Rs.5200-160-6000-175-6875/- and was thus placed in E-5 Grade. The fact about the petitioner being in the aforesaid pay-scale and in E-5 Grade has been stated in para 8 of the writ application. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents.2. It appears that the petitioner was Initially suspended on 30th July, 1989 in contemplation of some Investigation but later on the said suspension order was withdrawn on 5/6.10.89. Ultimately on 6th October, 1989 Director (Technical) Operations issued a charge sheet under his signatures to the petitioner. He was charged for the following acts of misconduct :--(a) Neglect of work or negligence in the performance of duty including malingering or stowing down of work. (b) wilful damage to property of the Company. (c) Abetment of or attemp...

John Jeffery Madan Vs. the Commissioner, Calcutta Municipal Corporatio ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)1CALLT151(HC)

A. Kabir, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the lessee of premises No. 58, Lenin Sarani, Calcutta-700013, with 'Opera Cinema', a partnership firm, as a tenant under him in respect of the said premises. According to the petitioner, a part of the premises is being used for residential purposes and the rest for non-residential and commercial purposes.2. The petitioner appears to have been served with a notice dated 26th May, 1996. under section 134(3) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 19SO, hereinafter referred to as the '1980 Act', informing him that upon revision the Annual valuation of the premises had been fixed at Rs. 2,28,130/- with effect from the 2nd Quarter of 1991-92 and the same was to remain in force for a period of 6 years.3. An objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner to the said revision of the Annual Valuation stating that in the absence of any increase in the rents received from the tenants the enhanced valuation was unjust and arbitrary and the old valuati...

Mrs. Dr. Tapati Sengupta and Ms. Amgana Sengupta Vs. Enforcement Offic ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1998(60)ECC48

Samaresh Banerjea, J.1. Common questions of law and fact being involved in both the writ petitions, the same have been heard analogously and will be governed by the same judgment.2. One of the questions which has come up for consideration in the instant writ proceedings, is, whether Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA) and Section 34(2) of FERA are ultra vires the Constitution of India and is illegal, invalid and null and void.3. Each of the writ petitioner has also challenged in the writ petition summons issued against each of them under Section 40(1) one of FERA by the appropriate authority on merits.4. In the writ petition No. 2580 of 1996, it is the case of the petitioner Ms. Amgana Sengupta, daughter of Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta, a former Judge of this Hon'ble Court and the Allahabad High Court, and who has obtained a Bachelor's Degree in law from London University and Master's Degree in law from Cambridge University and ...

Jasmine Commercials Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN172(Cal)

ORDERAt the centre of controversy in these nine petitions, being disposed of together by this common judgment, is the receipt of an amount of Rs. 99,95,929 received on 2-4-1991 and sought to be assessed as 'receipt of arrear rent' under the head 'lncome from business 'for the previous year ending 31-3-1992 corresponding to the assessment year 1992-93. Respondent No. 1, the assessing officer, passed the order on 28-2-1995 whereby he assessed the aforesaid amount of Rs. 99,95,929 as arrears of rent as the 'income from business'. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide his order dated 22-12-1995, while disagreeing with the assessment order passed by respondent No. 1 and allowing the appeal of the petitioner, held that the action of respondent No. 1 in including the aforesaid amount as being arrears of rent and as 'business income' of the petitioner for the assessment year 1992-93, was not in order and, accordingly, the Appellate Commissioner ...

Jolly Durga Prasad Vs. Goodricks Group Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)1CALLT191(HC),1997(2)CHN364,[1999]97CompCas698(Cal)

D.B. Dutta. J. 1. M/s. Goodricks Group Limited is a company Incorporated under the Companies Act. It lodged a complaint being Case No. C784/95 under section 630 of the Companies Act in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore against one Arun Kumar Durgaprasad on the allegations, which, in substance, were as follows. Arun Kumar Durgaprasad was an employee of the Company. He took voluntary retirement from his service on the expiry of September, 1994. At the time of his retirement, he was the Vice President of the Company. During the tenure of his service under the company, he was given accomodatlon for his residence at Company's flat No. 5C with terrace garage at No. 1, Merlin Park, Calcutta, of which the company is the owner. He ceased to be an employee of the company by reason of his voluntary retirement on and from 1st day of October. 1994 and by that date he should have vacated the flat in favour or the company but on his request, the company allowed him to use the said fla...

Magma Leasing Limited Vs. Nepc Micon Limited and anr.

Court: Kolkata

ORDERSujit Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This is an application by the first defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the saidAct' for short) for stay of this suit and for reference to arbitration. 2. The cause of action of the plaintiff as laid in its plaint which is an annexure to the present application is stated briefly hereinafter:-- The plaintiff is a financial institution. As and by way of financial accommodation the plaintiff purchased from the first defendant its five several wind turbine generators that the said defendant had set up in village Nallurpelayam in the district of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu ('the said generators' for short) and let the same to the said defendant on and subject to the terms and conditions contained in five several hire-purchase agreements in writing all dated 14th June, 1995 ('the said agreements' for short). The said agreements were each executed by the said defendant but not by the second defendant. Each of the said agreements i...

Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)ILLJ654Cal

1. The basic issue involved in this appeal is whether an order dismissing an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to as the Act) is an 'award' directing 'reinstatement' within the meaning of the phrase under Section 17B of the Act.2. The issue arises out of the dismissal of the respondent No. 3 from service by the appellant. According to the appellant the respondent No. 3 refused to abide by a transfer order and used abusive language against the management. According to the respondent No. 3 the transfer order was issued mala fide. A show- cause notice was issued by the appellant to the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 answered this but did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. On the basis of the enquiry report the order of dismissal was passed by the appellant. According to the appellant immediately thereafter one month's wage was sent to the respondent No. 3 and an application was made under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before t...

In Re: Anwar Alias Answar Alias Ansar Rahaman

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)2CALLT411(HC),1998(59)ECC257

1. We asked for the records of the learned court below in connection with this case which is sent in a sealed cover. The same is opened in court today.2. Mr. Banerjee has already canvassed in his prayer for bail when we were constrained to bring the LCR from the learned court below. It has been urged by Mr. Banerjee while urging the prayer for bail that the chargesheet was not submitted in accordance with the provisions of law. According to him, Section 173(5) demands that a chargesheet when submitted, must bear all the documents, namely, all documents or relative extracts on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation and the statements recorded under Section 161, of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses. This is curious to find from the perusal of the chargesheet filed in the learned court below that not a single statement of witness has been appended to the chargesheet nor the same was fi...

Sri Sushil Kumar Khan Vs. Sri Chirakishore Bhaduri

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)2CALLT9(HC)

Mallick, J. 1. Second appeal arises at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant-landlord against the Judgment and decree dated 17.2.86 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court at Howrah in Title Appeal No.2 of 1985 reversing those dated 26.11.84 passed by the learned Munslf, Second Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 382 of 1981. The aforesaid suit was brought by the plaintiff-landlord against the defendant-tenant for eviction from the suit premises on grounds of default, causing waste and damage to the suit premises and of reasonable requirement for own use and occupation under the respective provisions of section 13 (1)(b), (11) and (1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The learned Munsif rejected the grounds under section 13(1)(b) and (I) of the Act but decreed the suit one ground (11). The suit premises is at 45 Brojanath Lahlri Lane. P.S. Shlbpur, District Howrah consisting of two bed rooms, a kitchen, privy and a bath. The pl...

In Re: Harihar Mondal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1997)2CALLT311(HC)

1. Mr. Sanyal has filed an application for recall of the order dated 21st July, 1997 which was presented under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlargement of the accused person on bail. It is manifest from the order passed by ourselves that upon consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also after perusal of the case Diary we rejected the prayer for ball. There is no bar under the law to repeat the prayer for bail so long the accused person is in custody or is not enlarged on bail. In the circumstances, there can be no reason to recall the order passed by ourselves of the aforesaid date. Had there been an error of the court, certain by the court, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can recall the order. There is no cleavage of opinion that a court cannot recall its own order by sitting upon its own judgment, once decided. The provisions for revision are available under Section 397 and 401 ...