Kolkata Court December 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.
Abhik Kumar Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN548
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the Government is entitled to issue a supplementary licence to an existing licence holder under Rule 15(2) of the Bengal Excise Rules, 1993 or the under Rules, 2003 when there had been restrictions imposed by the Government order that a person having excise licence is disqualified to apply for another excise licence at the new .2. The appellants are the existing excise licence holders for country spirit. Similarly the private respondents were having excise licence for pachwai. By introduction of foreign liquor, country spirit as well as colour and flavoured spirit, pachwai has lost its business worth and as such the Government decided to give them supplementary licence to deal with country spirit as well as the country spirit licence holders were offered supplementary licence to deal with ram and beer. The present disputes pertain to these two groups of licence holders. According to the appellants the Governme...
Binapani Mitra and ors. Vs. Bhabani Charan Nandy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT99(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated March 16, 1998 and May 2, 1998 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 232 of 1993 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Howrah, affirming the judgment and decree dated June 29, 1993 and July 12, 1993 passed in Title Suit No. 232 of 1983 by the learned Munsif, 5th Court, Howrah.2. The back drop under which this appeal has been preferred is inter alia as follows:Said Batokrishna Mitra filed T.S. No. 232 of 1983 praying for his declaration of tenancy and injunction and also praying for setting aside the decree in case No. 51 of 1980.3. One Bhabani Charan Nandy originally filed T.S. No. 51 of 1980 against one Batokrishna Mitra praying for his eviction from the suit property. The said Title Suit No. 51 of 1980 was decreed ex parte.4. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed but that application was also dismissed. Thereafter, said...
Sarmistha Roy (Sinha) Vs. Arindam Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN252
1. The instant appeal is directed against an order No. 5 dated 29.5.2003 passed in MAT. Suit No. 125 of 2002 by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Barasat and in dismissing the joint application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Judge came to a finding that it was difficult to believe that the differences cropped up with regard to temperament, habits and tastes. Precisely, this is the ground for which the learned Judge came to an ultimate finding that the joint application should be dismissed.2. In our considered opinion, the entire findings to that effect on the face of the record is erroneous. The language of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act clearly lays down that when both the parties of a marriage have been living separately for a period of one year or more and when they have not been able to live together and when they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved, they can come up with a joint application before the competen...
Smt. Gouri Phani Chakraborty Vs. Governing Body of Krishnanagar Women' ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT212(HC)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This is an application for contempt. This contempt application is arising out of an order passed by this Court in disposing of the writ petition on 20th May, 2002. In the original order Court held: a long period of suspension till the retirement of the incumbent is as good as major penalty like compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal. Such order was set aside. However, it was observed that this order will not prevent the authority concerned to proceed in accordance with law, if necessary. In drawing inference Court has also held that the petitioner will be entitled to service benefits including arrears deducting the amount, if any, paid during the period of suspension. From such order an appeal was preferred when on 26th August, 2002 an interim order was passed by the Division Bench giving directions for preparation of the Paper Book and fixing a period of hearing. Meanwhile, operation of the order of the learned single Judge impugned in this appeal was stayed. T...
Sri Gora Chand Das Vs. Fajle Jamal Alias Bachu Mia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT190(HC)
Amitava Lala, J.1. The order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge, First Court, Suri, Birbhum is under challenge. In the order of remand, it is observed by the learned Court of appeal below that initially a payment has been made by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendant-respondent in the year 1971 and due to long lapse of time, such payment has become time barred to construe it as per consideration for getting a relief of specific performance of contract. The learned Judge disbelieved the distinguished ratio of the judgment reported in : AIR1994SC105 (Surya Narain Upadhayaya v. Ram Roop Pandey and Ors.) in coming to a conclusion to pay the balance sum of consideration under an order of the Court. I have gone through the issues framed by the learned trial Judge wherein it appears that one of the issues is as follows:Is the suit barred by limitation? However, from the recording of the judgment it appears that such issue was not agitated. Therefore, the same cannot be agita...
M.S. Freight Carriers Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-2003
Reported in: [2005]140STC80(Cal)
1. In this writ application, the petitioners have challenged an Order passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal dated August 13, 2003 in RN-347 of 2003*, dismissing the petitioners' application for condonation of the delay in filing the main application challenging the seizure of the goods in question on September 11, 2002.2. As will appear from the facts as disclosed, the petitioners herein were the carrier of certain goods purportedly on behalf of the owner M/s. Promising Exports Ltd. when the seizure was effected, penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioners herein as the carrier of the goods. The same was initially challenged by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner, Taxation, Central Section, within the time prescribed in the statute. It is submitted that the said petition is still pending disposal. During the pendency of the revisional application, M/s. Promising Exports Ltd., claiming to be the owner of the goods, were advised to challenge the seizure...
Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT78(HC),2004(2)CHN40
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This public interest litigation has been brought by the petitioner who is a Member of Parliament and President of the District Congress Committee of Murshidabad District within the State of West Bengal.2. This writ petition relates to death of several children for an unknown cause mainly in the Lalgola and Jangipur Block of Murshidabad District during the period of May 14, 2003 to June 14, 2003. According to the petitioner about 95 persons died during the said period whereas respondent authorities disputed such fact. However, the respondent authorities admitted that about 19 deaths occurred for the said unknown disease during the said period in the State hospitals. The State also admitted that there might have been more deaths within the village who did not approach the Governmental Agency for treatment.3. Initially we directed affidavits to be filed so that the State Authority could justify their conduct. Accordingly, affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the...
Nabanita Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN95
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 1-9-2003 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, in petition No. 1740 filed by this petitioner in the said Court and thereby dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr. P. C.2. After hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant revisional application can be disposed of without serving notice to the State.3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is bad in law as without complying with the provision of Section 203 of Cr. P. C., the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Moreover, the learned Magistrate did not consider that in order to attract offence under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C. and Section 45 of the Special Marriage Act, no question of complaint from any Court is required. In respect of offence under Sections 196 and 199 of the I.P.C. there may be a bar under Section 195 of Cr. P...
Mithlesh Kumar Vs. Shyam Lall Paik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN682
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the said Code' in short) against the judgment and order dated September 22, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands in Criminal Revision Case No. 116 of 2003 reversing order dated June 2, 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Court at Port Blair in C.R. Case No. 110 of 2002.2. The opposite party No. 1 lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Court at Port Blair. The said complaint case has been registered as C.R. Case No. 110 of 2002 before the said Court.3. The petitioner appeared in the said case on February 27, 2003 and engaged one learned advocate to defend his case. The learned Magistrate enlarged him on bail.4. The petitioner on March 12, 2003 filed an application under Section 205 of the s...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Steelco Products, Proprieto ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)IILLJ180Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. The order passed by the appropriate Judge of Employees' Insurance Court is as follows:'That the case is dismissed on contest without costs. The applicant is liable to pay the claimed amount including interest up to March 23, 1990 as indicated above less the amount deposited as security to the tune of Rs. 3,100. The applicant company is given liberty to make payment of the said claimed amount in three equal instalments within six months from the date of this order.'2. While considering such matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I find that pursuant to Section 39(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, and as per Section 31, of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, that the insurance amount as specified therein will have to be paid till the date of actual payment.3. Therefore, it can be safely construed that the entire dues are liquidated by virtue of the necessary implication of such provisions.4. Hence, the order restrai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »