Kolkata Court November 2003 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.
Dr. Parijat De Vs. Dr. Amarendra Kumar Samaddar Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT580(HC),2004(2)CHN510
A.K. Ganguly, J.1. This Writ petition has been filed by one Dr. Parijat De impugning the judgment and order dated 15.02.2002 passed in O.A. No. 2296 of 1999. The said O.A. was filed by one Dr. Amarendra Kumar Samaddar Chowdhury challenging the selection of the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'PSC') for the post of Principal in the Kalyani Engineering College. The Tribunal, after a contested hearing, was pleased to set aside the selection and appointment of the petitioner (respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal) to the said post and gave liberty to the respondent authorities to fill up two posts of Principal in the Jalpaiguri and Kalyani Engineering Colleges in accordance with the rules.2. However, pursuant to the selection in 1999 which was quashed by the Tribunal in the month of February, 2002, the petitioner was appointed by an order dated 25.10.1999 to the post of Principal in the Kalyani Engineering College and, thereafter, the petitioner was confirmed in the sa...
Anand Ruia Vs. Vidhas Ruia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN685
P. N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Cr. P. C.) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No. 3 dated 3.9.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 159 of 2003. The learned Judge by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the present petitioner challenging maintainability of the petition under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. filed by O. P. No. 1 during pendency of MAT suit between the parties and pendency of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called H.M. Act) petition filed by the wife in the matrimonial suit claiming maintenance pendente lite.2. Mr. Tarun Banerjee, learned senior advocate of the petitioner contended that Section 24 of the H.M. Act application filed by the wife O.P. No. 1 is almost at the concluding stage in the MAT suit now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Calcutta. Recording of ev...
Ellenbarrie Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Kejriwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: [2004]52SCL342(Cal)
ORDERPinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. After considering the facts as pleaded in the petition and the submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioning creditor and the company it appears that excepting the particulars of the bill which has been specifically stated in paragraph 9 of the petition the Company has already paid the bill dated 9th September, 1999 Bill No. TSI/1999-2000/073, Bill dated 31-12-1999 being No. TSI/1999-2000/110 and dated 3-1-2000 being No. TSI/1999-2000/112.2. The dispute has been taken by the Company since according to them the machinery which has been supplied by the petitioning creditor is not working properly and the letter had also been addressed to the petitioning creditor by the Company but it appears that the facts stated in the said letter are little bit confusing. So the statement made in the said letter cannot be taken as the fact really stated by the Company in respect of the said machine in question. The amount which has been ...
Biswanath Maji Vs. Karuna Sindhu Dey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN188
D.K. Seth, J.1. Deficit Court fee has since been put in on 6th of November, 2003 vide Filing No. A-14522. The defect thus stands removed.2. This appeal arises out of an order of remand. The plaintiffs name was recorded in the record-of-rights as bargadar in respect of the suit property under the defendant. He claims a presumption under Section 21B of the Land Reforms Act and prayed for a declaration that he is a bargadar and for injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing his exercise of right of cultivation as bargadar on the suit property. In the suit the defendant, in his written statement, had disputed the status of the plaintiff as bargadar. Issues were framed. In the written statement, the defendant admitted that the plaintiff cultivates His land but disputed that he cultivates his land as bargadar. In the evidence the defendant admitted that the plaintiff is a bargadar under him in respect of the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted the relief.3....
Rash Mohan Saha Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN80
Amit Talukdar, J. 1. Pursuant to a petition of complaint (Ext. 2) lodged by P.W. 2, Sankar Das Sinha the appellant hereinabove was arrayed before the learned Judge, Special Court (under the NDPS Act), Barasat 24-Parganas (North) in Case No. N-55 of 1997 to answer the following charge :'That you, on 27.10.97 at about 15 hrs. at Guma Bus Stand, Chowmatha on Jessore Road under P.S. Habra, you found in possession of 2 Kgs. brown coloured powder (heroin) in contravention of Section 8 of the NDPS Act'.2. Since he pleaded not guilty he was placed on trial which ended in his conviction in respect of the charge framed against him and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months by the judgment and order dated January 29, 2000.3. Assailing the conviction recorded against him by the learned Trial Court the appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground ...
Bankim Chandra Banerjee Vs. Chinmoyee Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN536
Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Matrimonial Suit No. 65 of 1987, by which the aforesaid Matrimonial Suit was dismissed on 9.1.95 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Howfah.2. The husband as the petitioner filed the matrimonial suit before the Court below alleging, inter alia, that the respondent was his wife and their marriage had been solemnised according to Hindu Rites on 31st January, 1978 at the then residence of the respondent's father at 44/2/1, Khetra Banerji Lane, P. S. Shibpur, Howrah. After the solemnization of the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife at their matrimonial home at 4, Baishnabpara Lane, Howrah-1 till 26th of Mareh, 1984 and a female child was born of the lawful wedlock of the parties on or about 12th December, 1978. At the time of his marriage, the petitioner was posted at Jhargram in the district of Midnapore and he used to attend his place of work from his residence at Howrah. He was transferred to Tribeni in t...
Udit Kumar Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Khaitan Consultants Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN271
D.K. Seth, J.1. The appellant claims to be a sub-tenant under the tenant against whom the landlord obtained a decree for eviction on 18th of December, 1998 in Ejectment Suit No. 338 of 1998, This decree was put into execution on 24th March, 1999. The decree was executed through police help on 4th July, 2001 excepting the portions occupied by the alleges(sic) sub-tenants/appellants in view of the fact that the appellants/sub-tenants had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), being Misc. Case No. 3824 of 1999 on 2nd of May, 1999. During the pendency of the said Misc. case, on 10th of July, 2001, the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (1997 Act) came into force repealing West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (1956 Act). The sub-tenant alleged to have given a notice under Section 26(2) of 1997 Act on 16th May, 2003 and applied before the Rent Controller under Section 26(3) of the 1997 Act for a declaration that the sub-tenant had become a di...
Bhogilal Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(164)ELT239(Cal)
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The Court : By this writ petition the writ petitioner has asked for realisation of the seizure value of the goods which were ceased under the provision of Section 110 of the Customs Act. The department concerned has made over the actual value of the goods long after the seizure was effected. The narration of the short fact is required to be stated hereunder.2. The department concerned had one point of time ceased certain sewing machine and accessories thereto. There were three items of materials. Necessary proceeding was initiated by issuing show cause notice. Petitioner replied to the show cause notice and then adjudication was done by the appropriate authority. Upon adjudication the Item No. 2 of the ceased goods was directed to be released unconditionally. However, the other items being Item Nos. 1 and 3 were confiscated but allowed to redeemed by the petitioner upon payment of penalty of a sum of Rs. 7,500/-. The petitioner ultimately paid that amou...
Pannalal Roy Vs. Tarapada Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT270(HC)
A.K. Mitra, J. 1. Origination of this second appeal is from the challenge thrown to the judgment and decree dated 11.5.1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court at Alipur in Title Appeal No. 270 of 1989 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1989 passed by the 1st Additional Munsif at Alipur in T.S. No. 22/87.2. The instant case concerns a suit for ejectment and recovery of khas possession along with prayer for mesne profits. The case made out in the plaint in brief is, inter alia, as follows:--3. The plaintiff Pannalal Roy is the owner of the suit premises. The original defendant Tarapada Mitra was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property at a rental of Rs. 150/- per month. The allegation is that the defendant is a habitual defaulter in the matter of payment of rent since November 1981. He has been intentionally using the varandah as kitchen and the kitchen as bed room in order to damage the suit property and as a result the condition of the suit p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›