Kolkata Court December 1999 Judgments

All Bengal Rickshaw Union and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)2CALLT72(HC),2000(1)CHN199

A. Lala, J. 1. The petitioners are representing a union and the office bearers of the hand rickshaw pullers in the City of Calcutta asking relief in the nature of writ of mandamus as to the nature thereof commending the respondents to issue and/or renew pullers licence to the applicants in pursuant to the provisions of Calcutta Hackney-Carriage Act within a short period from the date of the application upon rejecting the Impugned order dated 4th May, 1998. In addition thereto the petitioners also sought relief in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash, rescind or to recall such impugned order dated 4th May, 1998 issued by the respondent No.3 in respect of issuance of fresh and/or renewed licence to the pullers of rickshaws and other consequential reliefs in the nature of writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from taking any penal action against the pullers from not having licence.2. The petitioner contended that at present in Calcutta City about 6,000 licensed rickshaws ar...

Gopeswar Prasad Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1999Cal159

ORDERK.J. Sengupta, J.1. The writ petitioner herein claiming one of the co-owners of a plot of land bearing R. S. Dag No. 462 under Khatian No. 226, Mouza Mondalghanti, P. S. Rajarhat, District-24 Parganas (North) has challenged the requisition and subsequent acquisition of the aforesaid plot of land. The petitioner has acquired this land along with other co-owners by and under a registered Deed of Conveyance.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the State respondent has illegally and wrongfully and without serving any notice or giving any hearing to the petitioner has requisitioned and lateron acquired the aforesaid plot of land. In a partition suit joint Receivers being the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein. have been appointed by this Hon'ble Court in its ordinary original Civil Jurisdiction. In the aforesaid partition suit the said joint Receivers by an order dated 27th March, 1991 have taken possession along with other suit properties of the said plot of land. The joint Receivers ...

Sujata Saha Vs. N. Saha @ Nilkantha Saha

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: II(2000)DMC469

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application is at the instance of a wife in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and is directed against Order No. 49 dated September 16,1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 4 of 1996 thereby rejecting an application of the present petitioner under Order 32(A), Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking service of any Councellor being Welfare Expert (preferably women) engaged in promoting the welfare of the family for the purpose of effective councelling to resolve the dispute between the parties.2. In the aforesaid suit for declaration that the marriage was a nullity, for suppression of material facts as regards the alleged epilepsy of the petitioner, the learned trial Judge tried for reconciliation in terms of Section 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears from the record that inspite of best attempt, such reconciliation failed and accordingly the learned ...

G.R. Magnets Ltd. Vs. Dy. Dir., Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2000(68)ECC564,2000(116)ELT18(Cal)

ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. The writ petitioner's bank accounts at Calcutta have been restrained from operation, excepting for receipt of inward remittances.2. HDFC Bank gave no reason for such stoppage, but the Bank of America forwarded the copy letter which worked as an attachment order.3. The letter is written by a Deputy Director who should be a junior bureaucrat as per his designation.4. The Bank accounts have been sought to be restrained as to their operation and Section 110 of the Customs Act has been mentioned.5. Summons has been served under Section 108.6. The allegations in the copy letter forwarded by the Bank of America are absolutely vague.7. Phrases like 'huge amounts' are used. This is not newspaper language, not legal. Nobody can spell out why the monies in the accounts might ultimately be liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Nobody can make out why summons under Section 108 has been served when the allegation is the obtaining of 'Fraudulent' drawback by quite ano...

Suvidha Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2000(120)ELT618(Cal)

ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. The writ petition is against a show cause and as such the writ petition is disposed of summarily without entering into merits which are to be decided upon by the Department.2. The seizure of goods took place in May, 1999 from the premises of the writ petitioner. The show cause notice has been issued to a sister concern of the petitioner, viz., Ambica Nahar, a partnership.3. A particular partner, viz., Anil Jain is also a share-holder of the petitioner company and has made representation on behalf of the partnership also.4. It is the claim of Mr. Bajoria's clients that the goods should be released, as the goods are clean and belong to the petitioner and not to the partnership.5. The cleanliness of the goods is under issue before the Department and no pronouncement is made in that regard.6. If the show cause notice is against the partnership only, the representation of ownership and claim to that effect can hardly be made by the writ petitioner.7. On the other ha...

Basant Saraf Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2000(122)ELT17(Cal)

S.B. Sinha, J.1. Both these appeals involving common question of law and fact and having arisen out of a common judgment were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this judgment.2. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein. They filed two writ applications for quashing two investigations made pursuant to first information reports leading to initiation of two cases under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, being English Bazar P.S. Case No. 404 of 1998 dated 30.11.1998 and English Bazar P.S. Case No. 405 of 1998 dated 30.11.1998 respectively as also confiscation proceedings, being E.C. Case No. 13 of 1998 and E.C. Case No. 14 of 1998 pending before the Collector under E.C. Act, Malda, as also the order dated 04.12.1998 passed therein.3. The appellants/writ petitioners are exporters. They were exporting rice to Bangla Desh. Their trucks were seized for alleged violation of the provisions of conditions laid down under para 10 of the West Bengal R...

Kashi Nath Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. 103 applicants jointly filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act being aggrieved by non-stepping up of their pay with reference to their juniors with retrospective effect from 16.10.90 by extending the benefits of the promotion to the scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- under B.C.R. Scheme as per judgment dated 10.3.94 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1493 of 1993 Shri B.B. Das and Ors.v. Union of India and Ors. They made representation to the authorities stating, inter-alia, that they are similarly circumstanced with the applicants of the aforesaid O.A. 1493 of 1993. Hence, they are also entitled to get promotion to the scale of Rs. 2000-3200.- against 10% of the posts in Grade IV as per B.C.R. Scheme. The applicants joined as T.S. Clerk in the office of the Central Telegraph Office, Calcutta on different dates from 1954 onwards. There are two channels of promotion i.e. one under normal channel promotion and other under one-time-bound promotion under BCR ...

Krishnendu Narayan Ghosh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000(86)FLR566],(2000)ILLJ1543Cal

Barin Ghosh, J.1. The petitioner was the Director (Finance) of the Hindustan Copper Ltd. being the respondent No. 6. With effect from September 1, 1995 until further orders the petitioner was appointed as Acting Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the respondent No. 6. While he was discharging the duties and functions of the Director (Finance) as well as Acting Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the petitioner was informed by a letter dated February 13, 1998 that he would continue as Director (Finance) from February 1, 1998 to February 28, 1998 i.e., the date of superannuation of the petitioner. On February 16, 1998 the petitioner received a charge-sheet dated February 13, 1998 issued under the provisions of Hindustan Copper Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979. On February 23, 1998 the petitioner was served with another charge-sheet dated February 20, 1998. By the charge-sheet dated February 13, 1998 the petitioner was asked to submit his: written statement within 15 days o...

Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2000]246ITR170(Cal)

1. The following question of law has been referred to us for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on appreciatipn of the Ordinance and the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was on wrong appreciation of the matter and that the claim was premature ?'2. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and the assessee and their rival contentions.3. Mr. P. P. Khaitan, the learned advocate appearing for the assessee, submitted that in the light of the legal provisions contained under Section 36(l)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee has to be deducted. The amount in question is Rs. 32,57,894 relating to the assessment year 1985-86. The assessee's case before the Tribunal was that t...

Santimoy Chatterjee Vs. State of W.B. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2000CriLJ2406

ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J.1. This application under Section 482 has been filed by one Santimoy Chatterjee against the State of West Bengal for quashing the proceedings of Balurghat P.S. Case No. 359/94 dated 6-10-1994 under Section 409, I.P.C. (State of West Bengal v. Santimoy Chatterjee) now pending before the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balurghat. The case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner was posted as Administrative Officer, District Family Welfare Bureau, Dakshin Dinajpur under the Department of Health, Government of West Bengal in 1994. The abovementioned police case was instituted against him with the allegation that he in the said capacity as an administrative officer had drawn a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) from the State Bank of India, Balurghat Branch out of the total deposit of Rs. 69,727/-(Rupees sixty-nine thousand seven hundred and twenty seven) standing in the Current Account in the name of the District Family Welfare Bureau on...