Kolkata Court April 2002 Judgments
Purnima Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT273(HC)
P.K. Ray, J. 1. In the writ application, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs :'(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to recall, rescind, cancel or withdraw the impugned order being annexure 'K' to this petition in so far as the denial of approval to the appointment of the ward of the petitioner and to forbear from giving effect to the same; (b) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce the records of the case in this Hon'ble Court so that on perusal of the same conscionable justice may be administered by quashing and/or setting aside the impugned order being annexure 'K' to this petition in so far as the denial of opportunity of approval to the appointment of the ward of the petitioner is concerned or to give any other direction as may be seemed fit and proper.' 2. By the impugned order in this writ application, which is nothing but a communication by the chairman, Ad-hoc Committee, Midnapore District Primary School Co...
Tag this Judgment!Supreme Oil Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Special Secretary, Finance (T ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2002
Reported in: [2002]127STC352(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated January 25, 1999 passed by the Special Secretary, Finance (Taxation) Department, Government of West Bengal rejecting the petitioner's application for getting the benefit under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Unit) Scheme, 1994 (hereinafter called the 'said Scheme').2. It may be noted that the impugned order was passed pursuant to an order of the honourable High Court on a previous writ petition being W.P. No. 1734 of 1998.3. On such petition, a learned judge of this Court by an order dated December 15, 1998 directed that the petitioner's application filed in Form I under the scheme be heard and a reasoned order be passed disposing of the application.4. Pursuant to the said order, the impugned decision was passed as stated hereinabove.5. Therefore, the question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to the assistance under th...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chakravorti and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR10(Cal)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.Facts:1. The petitioner had moved Writ Petition No. 107 of 2001 before this court. In the said writ petition, it was alleged that the writ petitioner by way of an application made a prayer to the income-tax authorities for refund of certain amount of tax paid in excess, but the concerned authority was not refunding the same. By an order dated January 22, 2001, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the assessing authority to dispose of the petitioner's application for refund in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the assessing authority on April 12, 2001, had passed an order rejecting the claim for refund made by the petitioner. It is this very order, which has since been challenged in this writ petition.Submission on behalf of the petitioners:2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the order dated April 12, 2001, has been passed pursuant to the order dated January 22, 2001, in Writ Petition No. 107 of 2001, by this court, the...
Tag this Judgment!Kanta Depura Vs. Cesc Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT407(HC)
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. Both the writ petitions and the applications arise out of identical facts and this judgment will cover both.2. On writ petitions filed by Srimati Kanta Depura praying for electric connection in room Nos. 186 and 187 (2nd floor) in respect of her office at 14/2 Old China Bazar Street, an order was passed by this Court on 13th September 2000. The said order is set out below:'Before:The Hon'ble Justice GangulyDate: 13th September, 2000Dictated OrderThe Court: Heard learned counsel for both the parties.The petitioner's case is that his prayer for getting electric connection to the premises mentioned in the cause title is not granted by the CESC since 1996.Learned counsel for CESC submits that in order to effect connection the people from CESC went to the spot but they could not give the connection as they were obstructed by landlord's men and they had to come back more than once on being so obstructed.Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that just because a landl...
Tag this Judgment!Anoop Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2004(93)ECC149,2002LC316(Calcutta),2002(145)ELT48(Cal)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.Facts :1. Certain goods were imported under a special import licence. These are described as walkie-talkie toys. The customs authority had refused to release the goods on the ground that those are not the goods, which were permitted to be imported under the Special Import Licence for importing electronic toys. A proceeding was initiated against thepetitioner and the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and then it was directed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and also a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- by an order dated 9th August, 1996 issued on 10th October, 1996. An appeal was preferred under Section 129A of the Customs Act. The said appeal was decided in favour of the petitioner allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of confiscation together with consequential relief. A reference under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act was sought to be made by the department through the Tribunal. But the Tribunal refused to state th...
Tag this Judgment!Saheda Khatoon Vs. Gholam Sarwar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)12,2002CriLJ4150
ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J.1. This Revision Application is directed against the order dated 21st March, 2001 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta where under the learned Judge dismissed the Misc. Case filed by the petitioner-wife praying for maintenance against the O.P.-husband. It may be mentioned here that the Q.P. has not entered his appearance in spite of repeated calls even though he has received the notice of this Revisional Application in due time (vide order sheet dated 12th April, 2002).2. The petitioner-wife filed this Misc. Case No, 136/99 under Section 125, Cr.PC-praying for an award of maintenance in her favour against her husband, the O.P. Her case was that she was married by the O.P. on 14th Oct. 1993 according to the Muslim rites and they lived as husband and wife for about two years after the marriage was consummated and during this period the petitioner conceived. But the husband started torturing her both physically and mentally. One day, when ...
Tag this Judgment!Paresh Nath Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Modern Food Industries India Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ499Cal
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated March 26, 1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned single Judge allowed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short) and set aside the award passed by the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII 54-75 and remitted the matter to the said Tribunal for proper adjudication.2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal may be summarised as under:The management of Modern Food Industries (India) Limited, respondent No. 1 in this appeal, was receiving informations, for a considerably long period, that there has been a systematic from the bread store of the company. While the supply van of the company bearing registration No. WMK-5 was delivering breads in Zone 6 under the regular delivery schedule on August 23, 1972 at 7.45, p.m., some officers of the company undertook' physical verification and/...
Tag this Judgment!Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd. Vs. Shakti Highway Enterprises
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2002
Reported in: III(2004)BC334,(2003)1CALLT1(HC),[2004]49SCL642(Cal)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. A winding up petition was filed by one M/s. Shakti Highway Enterprises, the Respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as 'the creditor'), under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, (in short 'the Act'), for winding up of M/s. Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd., the Appellant herein, (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), on the ground that the company had failed and neglected to pay its debt (principal amount Rs. 2,89,646/- plus interest) to the creditor. 2. By an order dated October 7, 1999 a learned Judge of this Court admitted the petition for winding up for a sum of Rs. 2,89,646/~ plus interest and granted liberty to the company to pay the dues within a fortnight. It was the further order that in default of payment the creditor would be at liberty to publish advertisement in daily Newspapers for the winding up of the company. 3. Being aggrieved, the company has preferred this appeal. By an order dated November 15, 1999 the appeal was admitted and o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskar Mondal Vs. Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT574(HC)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J. Submission of the petitioner : 1. Out of the self-same set of allegations, the respondents had initiated a departmental proceedings, as well as had lodged FIR, on the basis whereof, after investigation, the case has since been committed before the Special Court for trial under Section 409 of IPC. In the circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for stay of the departmental proceedings on the ground of prejudice of defence in the criminal trial. Relying on the facts and the material produced before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, had also sought for quashing of the criminal case, as well as the disciplinary proceeding. According to him, the FIR lodged and the charge sheet issued in the departmental proceeding, do neither disclose any offence nor disclose any misconduct. The mala fide is apparent on the face of the records and the material produced. He had elaborated the grounds, on which he is seeking both the reliefs. He at...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Bikash Chandra Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT43(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. Facts leading to the filing of the instant writ application in brief are as under:-2. A prior permission was granted for filing up the post of clerk and therein it was specified that the post is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates (annexure 'D'). Petitioner is one of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and was found eligible to appear at the interview held on 7th February, 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected and placed at serial No. 1 of the panel (annexure 'G') copy whereof was furnished to the petitioner by the school authorities upon request of the petitioner. From this said annexure 'G' it will appear that the panel in the order of merit prepared on the basis of the interview held on 7th February, 2000 is as under:Serial No.NameMarks obtained1.Bikash ChandraSaha12.33-Petitioner2.Anil KumarBagdi10.23-RespondentNo. 63.Tarun Kumar Das9.933. The DIS (SE) by his order dated 26th April, 2000 (annexure 'H') asked the school ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »