Kolkata Court September 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.
Basudev Malik Vs. State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN32
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application the writ petitioner, an approved assistant teacher of a school has challenged Annexure -P/14 to the instant writ application by which he was suspended in terms of the Management Rule 28(9)(viia) with effect from July 27, 2003 till the disposal of a criminal case.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and was consequently arrested on July 27, 2003, he remained in custody till August 12, 2003 and on that date he was released on bail. Subsequently, by order, dated September 1, 2003 the Managing Committee of the school by passing the order impugned suspended the petitioner with effect from July 27, 2003 till the disposal of the case.3. Being dissatisfied petitioner has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.4. It is contended by Mr. Sahoo, learned Advocate for the petitioner that there cannot be any suspension from an anterior date, a...
Muktipada Sarkar Vs. H.K. Mallick and Co. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN75
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. Plaintiff in Title Suit No. 15 of 2003 pending before the 5th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta is the appellant in this first miscellaneous appeal. He is aggrieved by Order No. 13 dated 13th June, 2003 passed in the suit. By the impugned order his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was contested by the respondent No. 1 (the defendant No. 1 in the suit), was dismissed by the learned Judge.2. With effect from 1st August, 1973 the respondent No. 1 (a registered partnership firm) let out to the respondent No. 2 (a private limited company) a one room suite with one bathroom and kitchen (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). It is located at the North-East back portion of the ground floor of premises No. 2, Auckland Place, Calcutta- 700 017. The tenure of the tenancy was 21 (twenty-one) years, that is, the date of expiry of the lease creating the tenancy was fixed for 31st...
Asstt. Cit Vs. Meal Auto Credit Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: (2004)86TTJ(Kol.)996
These are the appeals filed by the revenue against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-8-2002, for the assessment year 1999-2000, in the matter of disallowance of depreciation at higher rate of 40 per cent.As common grounds are involved in both the appeals, they are dealt simultaneously for the sake of convenience.The brief facts of the issue are that the assessees are engaged in the business of hire purchase and lease financing. The income from hire purchase is accounted by the assessees as finance charges and from lease financing as lease rentals. In the course of assessment under section 143(3), the assessing officer observed that the assessees have leased out motor lorries and trucks in its lease business and claimed depreciation at 40 per cent thereon. The assessing officer found that the assessees are engaged in the hire purchase and lease financing business and not in the business of running motor lorries and trucks on hire; he, therefore, asked the assessee to...
Sudhendu Kumar Dutta Vs. Arati Dhar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)ARBLR621(Cal),2004(2)CHN248
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th March, 2002, passed by the learned Single Judge on an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by one Smt. Arati Dhar, who had entered into an agreement with one Smt. Madhabi Chatterjee, represented by her constituted attorney, Mr. Sudhendu Kumar Dutta, the appellant herein, on 13th of July, 1996, whereunder she agreed to purchase a flat measuring 650 sq. ft. in premises No. 131/37, Netaji Subash Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta-700 040 together with the proportionate share in Plot No. 37, Regent Park comprising the said premises. As will appear from the judgment under appeal, the said construction was to be undertaken by the appellant herein and under the terms of the agreement the appellant was to make over possession of the flat to Smt. Arati Dhar within two months from the date of execution of the agreement dated 13th of July, 1996. Inasmuch as, the said two months expired on 13...
Abhijit Sen Vs. Superintendent (Administration) Regional Passport Offi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN66,2004CriLJ1281
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. The writ petition was moved challenging the order impounding passport of the appellant/petitioner under Section 10(2)(e) of the Passport Act, 1967 on the allegation that a criminal case is pending against the appellant/ petitioner before a Criminal Court in India. The passport issued was sought to be impounded. The writ petition, however, was disposed of with certain directions by an order dated 14th August, 2003. In the said decision it was held that the criminal case seem to be pending before the Court against the appellant/ petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the appellant/ petitioner was injuncted from leaving India till the question is decided by the Regional Passport Officer. The scope of decision of the Regional Passport Officer was confined to the direction given in the said decision under appeal to the extent that the Passport Officer will give a hearing to the petitioner and arrive at a conclusion as to whether a criminal...
Shankari Haldar and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN183
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.2. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 14th May, 2001 passed by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition.3. The facts shortly put are this that the petitioners who are working as Special Attendants Aaya, wanted absorption of their services by the State Government. From the order dated 24th April, 2000 passed by the Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Health & Family Welfare it appears that 50% of the vacancies occurring in a year in a particular hospital in Group 'D' category of staff are to be filled up by special attendants. The petitioners are claiming absorption in view of such circumstances. Therefore, they are claiming absorption in State services.4. When the writ petition was first moved an order dated 13th December, 1999 was passed relying on the afore...
Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2003
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN308
D.P. Kundu, J.1. Prior to initiating the present writ petition the writ petitioners in the instant writ proceeding initiated another writ proceeding being W. P. No. 8478 (W) of 2003 wherein the writ petitioners challenged (1) summons dated 2nd June, 2003 directing the writ petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the company) to appear in person under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the P. F. Act) and (2) a reminder dated 02.06.2003 regarding non-submission of monthly returns, both issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner(Ex), West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as A. C). W. P. No. 8478 (WJ of 2003 was disposed of by an order dated 11.06.2003 passed by D.P. Kundu, J. The relevant part of the aforesaid order dated 11.06.2003 is set out hereinbelow:'Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the averments made in the writ application.I dispose of the writ application by the following ...
Magma Leasing Ltd. Vs. Tonganagaon Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR173(Cal)
ORDERSubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator instead and place of Mr. P.K. Banerjee, retired Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court.2. Admittedly, there has been an Arbitration clause in the agreement of financing between the parties. In the Arbitration clause it has been provided that all disputes, differences, claims and questions whatsoever arising between the parties should be referred to Mr. P.L. Agarwal of M/s. Khaitan and Company, Solicitors.3. The named Arbitrator, however, expressed his inability to enter upon the reference.4. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the said Act' in short) with a prayer for appointment of a person in place of the said Mr. P.L. Agarwal, who refused to act as an Arbitrator in the dispute between the parties. The said application was registered as A.P. No. 169 of 2001 in this Court.5. Ganguly, J. by order dated August 1, 2001 ref...
Minati Ghosh Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal74
ORDERPrabir Kumar Samanta, J.1. This revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 22-7-2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 44 of 2000. The aforesaid Misc. Case arises out of an application filed by the opposite parties herein under Order 21, Rule 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court by the aforesaid impugned order held that the said Misc. Case is maintainable in law by rejecting the contention of the petitioner.2. The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract being T.S. 185 of 1991 against the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7. At the appellate stage a compromise decree was passed and it is the case of the petitioner that while she made an application in the suit for police help for taking possession of the suit property, the sons of the opposite party No. 3 who was the original defendant No. 1 and who alone entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to the petitioner, resisted the exe...
Siba Prasad Sahoo Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN162
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The question, which has fallen for consideration in this case, is whether an original application to the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'said Tribunal) is maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy provided under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.2. An O.A. No. 2832 of 2001 was filed before the said Tribunal challenging the order of vesting passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Revenue Officer under Section 49(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the 'said Act')- The Tribunal held that the filing of such an application has been made in clear contravention of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter called the 'said Tribunal Act') and that, it had no jurisdiction to admit the said application and such the application is to be summarily rejected under Section 10(4) of the Tribunal Act and the Tribunal rejected the application. While so reject...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »