Kolkata Court July 2001 Judgments

Shyamal Krishna Chakraborty Vs. Sukumar Das and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2002CriLJ60

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of a judgment and order dated 4-3-99 passed by a Division Bench of Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen [as His Lordship then was] and Justice Dipak Prakash Kundu in MAT No. 339 of 1999.2. From the operative portion of the said judgment it appears that the learned Judges of the Division Bench allowed the appeal and further gave a direction that 'the appellant-petitioner should be treated as in service without any break and he should be paid all consequential benefits in accordance with law within three months from the date of communication of this order'.3. A few relevant facts may be noted. The service of the petitioner, a bus conductor, was terminated, inter alia, on the ground of unauthorized absence. Against the said order, an appeal was filed to the appellate authority under the rules and the appeal was rejected. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed which was numbered as CO. 5274 of 1992. A ...

Santosh Bhattacharjee Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT418(HC),2001(3)CHN697

P.K.Biswas, J.1. This revisional application is for quashing the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1536/95 under Section 143/342 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Barrackpore arising out of Dum Durn Police Station case No. 153, dated 17.5.1995 under Section 143/432 of Indian Penal Code.2. One Mr. R.K. Banerjee. District Engineer. Northern District of CESC, filed one written Information before the Officer-in-Charge, Dum Dum Police Station alleging commission of offence under Sections 143/342 of Indian Penal Code and on receipt of the same, Dum Dum Police Station started the P.S. Case No. 153 dated 17.5.1995 under Section 143/342 and subsequently after completion of Investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore when by his order dated 4.9.98, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore took cognizance and issued W.P.A. against the accused persons of the conc...

All Bengal Electricity Consumers Association and ors. Vs. State of Wes ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT61(HC)

K.J. Sengupta, J.1. In this representative action the petitioner No. 1 being the Association of the consumers of low tension line and its members have challenged in substance imposition of fixed charge at the rate of Rs. 10/- Per Horse Power Per month for all low tension industrial consumers by Notification dated 24th December 1998. The fact of the case in this action is as follows;-2. By a notice dated 24th December 1998 published in the 'Statesman' the respondent Board most arbitrarily and illegally has imposed upon the petitioners and all industrial consumers with low tension line new electricity charges at the rate of Rs. 10/- per Horse Power per month as 'Fixed Charge' along with the charges for units consumed as per tariff, after abolishing the Annual Minimum charge. So, the petitioners have been seriously affected with this high economic burden.3. Mr. Kashikanta Maitra, learned senior advocate in support of the petitioners contends that under section 22 of the Indian Electricity...

Arun Shaw and anr. Vs. the Cesc Limited and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT292(HC)

The Court 1. The husband and wife are the petitioners in this and haveJointly prayed for two separate new electric connections in the premises No.33. Rabindra Saranl, Liluah, Howrah. There is no dispute that applicationsof the petitioners have been received by the CESC and at certain stage Ithad agreed to give connection in usual course. However, dispute has arisenas CESC demanded for payment of the alleged outstanding dues of Rs.14,723/- in respect of electric energy consumed in past by the third partiesat the same premises. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not liableto pay the same as they were not consuming electric energy nor they areconsumers for the above outstanding dues. Therefore, under any circumstances they are not obliged to pay any amount in this respect for obtainingnew separate connection. 3. In affidavtt-in-opposition, the case of the CESC in substance, is that the petitioners were the beneficiaries in respect of the supply line previously...

Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation Canteen Work ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)3CALLT103(HC)

G.C. Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 23-11-1995 by which a learned single Judge of this Court held that the employeesof the Canteen run by the Damodar Valley Corporation Employees Cooperative Stores and Canteen Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Co-operative)are to be treated as the employees of the DVC and they should be giventhe benefit of proper pay scale and other benefits as are admissible to theemployees of the DVC. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learnedsingle Judge directed the DVC authorities to pay the scale applicable to theemployees of non-statutory Canteens as per the directives of the Government of India dated 24-11-1986. Aggrieved by this order the DVC haspreferred this appeal. 2. The basic question is whether the employees of the Canteen in question are to be terated to be the employees of DVC. For an answer to this question, the following facts and circumstances of this case may be noticed: 3. There are 20 persons working in th...

Sukhendu Bikash Addy Vs. BipIn Behari Addy and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2002Cal60

ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. In 1987, a suit for partition was filed in respect of a property known as Addy Estate. On 7th of February, 1994 the properties in Premises Nos. 56 and 58, Chetla Road, Calcutta was put up for sale by public auction. One Amal Roy was the highest bidder. The sale was confirmed for a sum of Rs. 7,25,000/-. On 23rd February, 1994 an apparent mistake in the Order with regard to the time limit for deposit of the amount was corrected as six weeks. An application was made by one Hiralal Dutta who was the second highest bidder for recalling the order dated 23rd February, 1994. On 21st March, 1994 the said Amal Roy had deposited the entire bid money. On 19th of June, 1995 the application made by Hiralal Dutta was rejected. An appeal was preferrd by Hiralal Dutta which was dismissed on 26th November, 1997. The Special Leave Petition against the same was dismissed on 20th February, 1998. On 9th April. 1998 the said Amal Roy submitted the draft conveyance to the Joint Receivers...

Colliery Mazdoor Sabha of India Vs. Board of Industrial Financial Reco ...

Court: Kolkata

Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. The order dated 23-2-2001 passed by the Board of Industrial Financial Reconstruction in Case No. 501 /2000 of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. has since been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the same order has been passed in violation of sub-paragraph (6) of Regulation 20 of BIFR Regulations, 1987 without giving any hearing to the petitioners as well as the other respondents Union. Relying on the order dated 30-8-2000, Mr, Subodh Ukil, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that Form AA which is the foundation for the procedure was not furnished to the Union which was directed to be furnished by the said order dated 30-8-2000 pursuant to which the petitioners had submitted its written statement and representation. Therefore, by reason of sub-paragraph (6) of Regulation 20, it was incumbent on the Board to give hearing to the petitioners as well as the other Unions. Instead of doing so, the Board had passed an order without giving opportunity ...

Bhaskar Chandra Das Vs. Champa Rani Das and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2003(2)CHN411

Amit Talukdar, J.1. A Revisional Order of reversal of the learned Trial Court's order has formed the subject matter of consideration in this application styled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the auxiliary Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the said Code).2. To come to a finding it is necessary to trace the events back to 13.6.95 on which date the opposite party, Smt. Champa Rani Das took out a petition under Section 125 pf the said Code before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Contai with a prayer for Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance for herself. The said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 194 of 1995 (T.R. 710 of 1999).3. Upon transfer the case stood for disposal before the learned Trial Court-the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Contai who upon considering the evidence and materials on record by his judgment and order dated 21.2.2000 dismissed the prayer for maintenance of the opposite party.4. She thereafter pr...

Balai Chandra Dutta Vs. State of W.B. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4508

ORDERArunabha Barua, J.1. This Criminal Revision is for the quashment of the proceedings of case No. G.R./2134 of 1984 wherein the petitioner/accused Balai Chandra Dutta has been facing the trial having been charged with the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.2. The facts leading to the case in question may be briefly stated thus.3. The allegation of the de facto complainant that is, O.P. No. 2, Smt. Sabita Ghosh, is that the accused/petitioner dishonestly induced the de facto complainant on March 5, 1981, to part with a sum of Rs. 35,000/- on a false representation that the accused/petitioner would arrange a Mini Bus permit for the de facto complainant. Relying on the said representation, de facto complainant paid a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in three instalments to the accused/petitioner in cash at the sweet-meat shop of M/s. K.C. Das on Esplanade Row (East), Calcutta. It was alleged by the de facto complainant that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid on March 27, 1981, a sum of Rs....

Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-vii Vs. Ramkant Mishra

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]252ITR210(Cal)

1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, this court has directed the Tribunal to refer the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the interest amounting to Rs. 50,300 on the ground that the loans themselves had not been added earlier?'2. In compliance with our direction the aforesaid question has been referred for our opinion.3. The relevant assessment year is 1987-88. The previous year ended on March 31, 1987. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed interest of Rs. 50,800 paid to Master Utsav Agarwal, Mr. Nidhi Agarwal, Binita Agarwal, Deepa Soni, Sukumar Bharech and Atmaram Poddar. On further scrutiny the Assessing Officer found that Utsav Agarwal opened his Savings Bank Account No. 4635 on February 20, 1986. His cash deposit was Rs. 101. Thereafter, Rs. 1,00,000 was deposited to that a...