Kolkata Court July 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.
Khitish Chandra Kamila Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN387
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 12.3.01 passed in Transferred Application No. 263 of 2000. While assailing the judgment of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has ignored the judgments and decrees passed by Civil Courts which have become final. In support of such contention the learned counsel for the petitioner first relied on a judgment dated 5.2.66 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court, Contai, in Title Suit No. 57 of 1963. The said suit was decreed in part on contest and the title of the plaintiff in the suit property described in Schedule 'Ka' to the plaint excepting plot 1783 of Mouza Patna appertaining to Khatian No. 404 was declared, and it was made clear that the said property cannot vest. The decree was also passed to the above effect. Against the said judgment and decree the State preferred an appeal. The said appeal was numbered as Title Appeal ...
Chairman, District Primary School Vs. Mousumi Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT573(HC),2004(2)CHN175
D.K. Seth, J.1. Mr. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, vehemently opposes the application for condonation of delay. There is about 26 days' delay in preferring the appeal. Mr. Bhattacharyya points out that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed long after filing of the appeal. In view of the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the petitioner is supposed to explain the delay till the date of filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Inasmuch as, unless the Memorandum of Appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, there is no Memorandum of Appeal in the eye of law. Therefore, it would be deemed to have been presented only when it is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This period needs to be explained. Without any explanation, the delay cannot be condoned.2. The second point taken by Mr. Bhattach...
income-tax Officer and ors. Vs. Electro Steel Castings Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: [2003]264ITR410(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 16, 1989, passed by a learned judge of this court in Civil Rule No. 3074(W) of 1977. By the said judgment and order, the learned judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. While passing the judgment under appeal, the learned judge noted that the said rule was made ready in the year 1979 and the matter was directed to appear in the list on different dates for hearing. Directions were given for affidavits, but, as no affidavit was filed by the Revenue, time to file the said affidavit was further extended on January 11, 1988. But, even then also, no affidavit was filed. Nor were the records produced which are normally produced in a proceeding relating to Section 148 notices. Since no materials were produced justifying the issuance of the notices, the learned judge found that the case in the writ petition that the notices were issued w...
Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: II(2004)BC88,(2003)3CALLT333(HC),[2005]123CompCas764(Cal),[2004]55SCL591(Cal)
A.K. Banerjee, J1. This winding up petition was filed by Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'RBI') under Section 45MC of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') inter alia, praying for winding up of Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'said company'). The said company was incorporated in March, 1987 and became a public limited company in January, 1991. The main objects of the said company of the said company are as follows: -'1. To carry on the business of an investment trust company and to underwrite, sub-underwrite, to invest in and acquire and hold, sell, buy or otherwise deal in shares, debentures, debenture-stocks, bonds, units, obligations and securities, issued or guaranteed by Indian or foreign Governments, State, Dominions, Sovereigns, Municipalities or Public Authorities or Bodies and shares, stocks, debentures, debenture-stocks, bonds, obligations and securities issued and guaranteed by any co...
Novattis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT1(HC),[2004(101)FLR278]
Dipak Prokash Kundu, J. 1. In the present writ proceeding the writ petitioner has challenged (a) Order No. 25 dated 30th, March, 1999 (Annexure-'P-15' of the writ application) passed by the Third Industrial Tribunal. West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Case No. VIII-69 of 1997, (b) Award dated 10th October, 2002 (Annexure-'P-19' of the writ application) passed by the Tribunal in Case No. VIII-69 of 1997 and (c) Order No. 888-IR/(IR/11L-11-95) dated 12.6.1997 (annexure-'P-12' of the writ application issued by Government of West Bengal, Labour Department, under the signature of the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal.2. In exercise of the power conferred by section 10 read with section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the said Act) the Governor of West Bengal was pleased to refer the industrial dispute between M/s. Sandoz (I) Ltd., 3A, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-71 (hereinafter referred to as the company) and the...
Sandha Ghosh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN696
S. P. Talukdar, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th July, 2001 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in Case No. A/554/99.2. Grievances of the present appellants may briefly be stated as follows.3. On 5th of March, 1998, Ananda Ghosh, son of appellants No. 1 came home at about 4.30 p.m. and after changing his dress, left at about 6 p.m. and did not return home the same day. On 6th of March, 1988, a news was published in the daily newspaper that an unknown person was shot dead at Ichapur Railway Station on platform No. 3 by some miscreants. Non-return of her son coupled with such an information being published in the newspaper naturally made the appellant anxious who sent a person to probe into the matter. The said person went to Ichapur and came to know that the dead body was sent to Naihati GRPS. The said person went to Naihati GRPS and identified the dead body as that of said Ananda Ghosh. Over this, Naihati GRPS Case N...
Ratnagiri Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN280
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This writ petition was heard along with WPLRT No. 309 of 2002 as in both writ petitions the self-same judgment of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal was under challenge.2. The respondent No. 6 is a school established by the members of the Jewish community for imparting education to their children. By an indenture dated March 27, 1912 a trust was created by the then members of the managing committee of the school appointing three members of the said community as trustees of the trust. The trust subsequently by a deed of trust dated June 16, 1916 appointed the Official Trustee of West Bengal as the trustee of the said trust for managing its affairs.3. By a registered indenture dated November 17, 1938 the trust purchased 76 Bighas 17 Cottahs of land at Mouza-Ariadaha, Kamarhati which was popularly known as Ezra Arakie Park (hereinafter referred to as PARK).4. On June 2, 1950, the Official Trustee demised the rear portion of the PARK comprising of an ...
In Re: Sanjay Kumar Singhania and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4789
ORDER1. Heard ld. counsel of both sides.2. Perused the application and filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the documents annexed.3. The ld. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submits that though a complaint, registered as Complt. Case C-129/99, under Sections 467/468/471/474/420/120-B of IPC was filed by one Gouri Sankar Jain before the ld. CJM, Alipore for sending it to the Behala P.S. for action under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an order was passed by the ld. Magistrate to that effect, no case could be registered at the concerned P.S. due to stay order passed by Courts at different stages. It is also pointed out that the order of vacating the Stay Order was communicated very recently to the Police Station as a result of which Police has not started any case as yet. So, it is submitted that as no case has yet been started the application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable.4. On the other hand, it is...
Wimco Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT414(HC),(2004)IILLJ103Cal
ORDEREDthat the workman's petition dated 18.6.2002 for setting aside the 'No Dispute Award' passed by this Tribunal on 15.5.2002 be allowed on contest without any cost. The 'No Dispute Award' passed by the Tribunal on 15.5.2002 is set aside and the case is restored to its original file.To 26.09.02 for hearing over the validity of the domestic enquiry. Parties must come ready on the date fixed.'7. The writ petitioner filed an application dated 26.9.2002 before the said Tribunal for reviewing of the order No. 36 dated 5.9.2000 passed by the said Tribunal.8. The said Tribunal by an order No. 43 dated 15.1.2003 rejected the aforesaid application dated 26.9.2002 filed by the writ petitioner for reviewing for recalling order No. 36 dated 5.9.2002 passed by the said Tribunal, on contest, with exemplary cost of Rs. 200/- and fixed 10.2.2003 for hearing over validity of the domestic enquiry. The relevant lines from the said order No. 43 dated 15.1.2003 passed by the said Tribunal are set out he...
Basudev Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT459(HC)
D.P. Kundu, J.1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court, be kept on record.2. By consent of parties, the application for addition of parties being CAN 4627/2003 is treated as on Day's list and the applicants in the said application are added as party-respondents in this writ proceeding.3. The Department is directed to correct the cause title accordingly by adding the names mentioned in the application as party-respondents.4. The writ petitioner in this writ application, inter alia, prayed for an order of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application for long term mining lease dated 12.8.92 being annexure-P-1 of the writ application.5. From annexure P-1, it is evident that the application in respect of which lease is required. Is Plot No. 3125/3126 Mouza- Saharjora, J.L. 26, District- Bankura. It appears from the application CAN 4627/2003 that the applicants in the said application, have also made an application for lease ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »