Kolkata Court May 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sunanda Bose and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT34(HC)
K.J. Sengupta, J.1. The petitioners with this application has asked for variation and/or modification of my order dated 10th October 2001 and for setting aside of the Memo bearing No. 7722-E dated 18.10.2001 being annexure 'P-2' and the report dated 23rd November 2001 being annexure 'P-5' to the application; and further refund of sum of Rs. 15,000/-. The case of the petitioner is appropriately narrated hereunder:2. The petitioner has a fishery right under the Private Fishery Protection Act, 1889 at a place called 'Tentul Berta Jalkar' located at Chak Path Mouza, P.S. Hasnabad, District 24-Parganas (North). She was unlawfully and unduly disturbed by the private respondents and other unidentified persons in assertion of her right of fishery under a licence granted by the Government under the statute. She was unable to operate sluice gate during high tide, which is necessary for pisciculture, rearing and catching fishes. So, she approached local Police Station first and having no redressa...
West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Vs. DakhiruddIn Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT84(HC)
A.K. Mathur, CJ.1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 22nd May, 2001 whereby the learned single Judge has set aside Memo No. S/631 dated 17th November, 2000 issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and directed the authorities to take steps for recognition of the school in question as per the provisions of law forthwith within two months from the dated of communication of the order. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been preferred by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.2. The Managing Committee of the Patharghata Junior High School (hereinafter referred to as the school), a school set up for the Class VIII standard, and some guardians of the wards of the said school filed a writ application challenging the Memo No. S/631 dated 17th November, 2000 issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. It was intimated to the school authorities that the recognition committee...
Subikash Roy Vs. Smt. Leena Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT260(HC),[2002]256ITR625(Cal)
M.K. Basu, J. 1. This revisional application has been directed against the judgment and order dated 7th August, 1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore in R.C. Appeal No. 4 of 1991 whereunder learned Judge dismissed the appeal in affirmation of the judgment dated 1.1.1991 of the Rent Controller in Calcutta in R.C. Case No. 348 of 1988. By that judgment the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 7 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore, the tenant-appellant has preferred the present Revisional Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the same as erroneous, illegal and unsustainable.3. The case of the petitioner-tenant in brief is that he has been a tenant in respect of the first floor of premises No. 57A, Linton Street, Cal-14 under the landlord-opposite party since 1955 at a monthly rental o...
Elbe Industrial Works Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]131STC453(Cal)
Sales Tax - reassessment - Section 11 E of Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act,1941, Rule 54AA of Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 and Rule 9 of Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958 - petitioner challenged notices of reopening of assessment - Rule 9 prescribes reopening to be made in terms of Section 11E and Rule 54AA and Rules of 1941 - reopening made through notice under Section 11E and Rule 54AA and Rules of 1941 cannot be questioned - notice issued on basis of seized books of accounts - petitioner not suffered prejudice - petition dismissed.JudgmentDilip Kumar Seth, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the notices of reopening of the assessment made under the bengal finance (sales tax) act, 1941 ('1941 act') for the respective periods 1988-89 till 1992 as well as the order of reopening dated october 23, 1998 passed by the deputy commissioner, commercial taxes, howrah circle, and the assessment made under the said order by the commercial tax officer (cto) respectively.Submission on beha...
Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ105CAT
1. The question for determination in this O.A. is what should be the date of increment in time scale (DOIS) of the applicant for the purpose of fixing his seniority in terms of the Scheme for making appointment to the post of General Managers and equivalent.2. The facts. There are following 8 feeder Railway Services of Group 'A' from which the General Managers are selected: The applicant appeared in the combined Engineering Services Examination held by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1966. On the basis of the merit list he was offered appointment in the Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers (IRSSE). He joined the post in the Northern Railway as probationer in the Signal and Telecom Department Railway in terms of the Railway Board's letter dated 27.10.1967 on 18.11.67. While undergoing the probation period, he appeared in the combined Engineering Services Examination held in September, 1967. This time he was selected for the Indian Railway Services Electrical Engin...
imsa Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(84)ECC581,2002LC1(Calcutta),2002(145)ELT55(Cal)
ORDER6. In these circumstances at the option of the exporter, the goods may be warehoused at the Central warehouse at Vizag or it may be stored in Customs warehouse at Kolkata, for which the cost is to be borne by the exporter. For the purpose of destuffing the goods from the containers, the Customs Authority shall issue notice to the exporter, fixing a date, giving at least a week's time for the purpose of destuffing the goods in the presence of the agent of the exporter and storing the same in the Central warehouse or otherwise, as the case may be, after such destuffing. In case the parties do agree, a Special Officer may be appointed for the purpose, the cost of which is to be borne by the exporter, in whose presence the goods should be destuffed and be stored in the warehouse subject to the result of the investigation, until the goods are released or confiscated, as the case may be. However, the Customs Authority shall complete the investigation and take appropriate decision after ...
Damodar Naryan Singh Vs. Sardar Hira Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT237(HC)
P.K. Ray, J.1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by defendant son, as petitioner, challenging the order dated 31st March, 2002 passed by learned Judge, Fourth Bench of the Court of the small causes at Calcutta in SCC No. 113/96 whereby and whereunder with reference to the application under Section 41 of the Presidencies Small Causes Courts Act, 1882, the defendant son was directed to vacate the suit premises and to deliver the possession of suit premises to the plaintiff, the father, within two months from date of the order upon decreeing the suit for khas possession of the suit premises on eviction of the defendant son therefrom in favour of the plaintiff father. 2. In the application under Section 41 of Presidency Small Causes Act, 1882 hereinafter refer to as the said Act, the plaintiff, which is the father of the defendant of the said application prayed for recovery of possession of suit room by eviction of the defendant son therefrom ...
Rajan Ghoshal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(88)ECC140
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner, Rajan Ghoshal, carries on business under the name and style of Shyam Sundar Enterprises, a sole proprietorship concern. He had exported certain goods in five containers from Kolkata Port through M.V. Kota Bintang. These containers were off-loaded from the vessel M.V. Kota Bintang at Vizag Port by the Customs Authorities. A notice dated 11th January, 2002 was addressed to the shipping agent M/s. S.K. Kanjilal, through whom the petitioner had shipped the consignment. This Annexure 'P-4 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. In the said letter, the shipping agent was informed that those five containers were off-loaded at Vizag Port for 100% examination. Therefore, the shipping agent was asked to depute a representative in whose presence the examination would be carried out on 12th January, 2002. This notice was issued by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Special Investigation Branch, Kolkata.Submission on behalf of the petitioner:2. Mr. Mullick,...
Anal Adhikary Vs. Krishna Adhikary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD(Cri)18,2002(4)CHN743,2003CriLJ297,II(2003)DMC570
Malay Kumar Basu, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th January, 2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Birbhum in Criminal Motion No. 42 of 2000 of that court arising out of an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bolepur dated 17th April, 2000 in Misc. Case No. 26 of 1999. The learned Sessions Judge reversed the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate and directed the husband (the present revisional applicant) to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month in favour of the wife (the present opposite party) towards her maintenance. The relevant facts leading to this revisional application are in short as follows:--The wife, Smt. Krishna Adhikary, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance against her husband, Anal Adhikary in the court of the said learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing the petition rejected her prayer on the ground, inter alia, that the petitioner-wif...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cegat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(104)LC609(Calcutta)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT') together with an application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay may be found at page 32, which is annexed to the Memorandum of Appeal. Subsequently, supplementary statements were filed in order to strengthen the application for condonation of delay. This was rejected by an order dated 16th January, 2002 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 56 of 1999 in connection with appeal No. E/V-109/99. It is this order contained in annexure P-10, which is under challenge. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the application for condonation of delay contends that there was sufficient explanation but the learned Tribunal had mechanically rejected the same. Me had submitted that the order contained in annexure P-10 should be set aside. He had also relied on a decision in the case of N. Balakrishnan ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »