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.
Sukanta Ghosh Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN427
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. Parties are present before me and heard them.2. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed at the instance of Sukanta Ghosh, the petitioner herein, seeking to quash the chargesheet No. 75 dated 17.4.2000 submitted in connection with G. R. Case No. 437/2000 arising out of Shibpur P. S. Case No.53/2000 dated 16.3.2000 under Section 277/278/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 52 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979.3. The short facts leading to the filing of this revisional application are as under : --The father of the petitioner in the year 1998 purchased a plot of land from one Smt. Durgarani Debi and others by a registered deed of Conveyance measuring about two cottahs together with the structure thereon and after the purchase of the said plot of land, the father of the petitioner duly made an application before the statutory authority to record his name in pla...
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and anr. Vs. Surendra Pratap Narayan Singh and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ498Cal
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against order dated September 4, 1998 passed by a learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. However, the Learned single Judge directed the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Coal India Limited to initite an appropriate departmental proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of appointing an enquiry officer and a presenting officer and such proceedings would be held de novo. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed by the Management.2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner at the relevant time was a Chief Mining Engineer/Project Manager in Kooridih Colliery belonging to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. He was charge-sheeted on September 15, 1992 for failure to maintain devotion to duty and for acting ...
Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Vs. Ram Ranjan Mukherjee and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN510
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Since both the appeals involve identical question of facts and law, those are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Short question in these appeals is whether the appellant was entitled to withhold and/or deduct gratuity payable to the respondents on account of arrear rent payable by the writ petitioners/respondents in respect of their official accommodation provided by the appellants.3. The writ petitioners/respondents opted for voluntary retirement, scheme. Such options exercised by the writ petitioners/respondents were accepted by the appellant company and the retiral dues were paid respectively to the writ petitioners/respondents after deducting a part of the gratuity on account of arrear rent allegedly payable by the writ petitioners/respondents on account of official accommodation provided to them.4. Such action on the part of the appellant company was challenged by way of writ petitions being W.P. No. 22504(W) of 1998 and W.P. No. 5131(W) of 1999. The...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sk. Azizul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ2142,(2004)3CALLT325(HC)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against an order dated 22nd January, 1992 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MIC No. 35/90. The order was passed on an application under section 140 filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1. By the impugned order the learned Tribunal was pleased to direct the opposite parties, that is the appellant insurer and the opposite party No. 2, the owner of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/-.2. On 23rd November 1989 one Azizul suffered serious injuries in an accident in which the vehicle bearing registration No. WBY 5158 (a private bus) owned by the opposite party No. 2 was involved. The vehicle in question was insured with the appellant, the Insurance Company. Consequent upon the accident and the injuries suffered by the said Azizul, the claimant (the opposite party No. 1) filed an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the learned Tr...
Engser Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT412(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made by the petitioners challenging an order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 13th July, 1998 being Annexure F to the writ petition. The whole contention of the writ petitioners is that no documents were given to the petitioner for the purpose of inspection of the records nor copy of the same was supplied before hearing of the appeal. Hence the order of the appeal is passed without following the principles of natural justice. It is to be remembered that the matter was remanded back by the Joint Secretary of Government of India to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for de novo consideration. Refund of Drawback will be applicable to the Customs authorities under Section 28 of the Customs Act. It provides a period of six months but such time can be extended for a period of five years whenever there is a question of mis-representation, wilful suppression, mischief or other fraudulent action in case of levy etc. Therefore, if no...
Asoka Ghose and ors. Vs. the Official Liquidator of Remington Rand of ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT608(HC),[2004]121CompCas229(Cal),[2004]51SCL572(Cal)
Mahemmad Habeeb Shams Ansari, J. 1. The instant matter has been assigned to this Court by the order dated August 5, 2003 of His Lordship the Chief Justice.2. Judge's Summons have been taken out for leave to the applicants to make the application and for condonation of delay in making the application. The relief, prayed for is for an order directing the respondent-Official Liquidator to disclaim and/or give possession of the flat, more fully stated in the lease agreement dated May 24, 1985 being annexure 'A' to the affidavit filed in support of the Judge's Summons.3. Brief facts based upon which the above reliefs have been prayed for are that the applicants are the owners and landlord of the flat which was given on lease to Remington Rand of India Limited (in liquidation) reliance for which purpose has been placed upon annexures 'A' and 'B'. The applicants through their advocate by a letter dated January 31, 2003 served a notice upon the Official Liquidator requesting him to disclaim th...
Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prasad Ranjan Ray a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: [2004]266ITR677(Cal)
Amitava Lala J.1. This is an application for contempt. By making this contempt application the petitioners contended that the alleged contemnors have violated the order dated January 21, 2003, passed by this court. In the original order this court was pleased to direct how the additional compensation be calculated and how the interest will be calculated. However, the operative part of the order is important for the purpose of consideration :The defects will be cured and a fresh order will be issued within one month from the date of communication of this order and upon making all calculations appropriate amount will be paid in favour of the petitioners within a period of one month thereafter.'2. According to the petitioners, they have supplied a copy of the order to the appropriate authorities with the letter dated January 28, 2003. Initially, a rule was issued keeping the question of maintainability of the contempt application open. The petitioners also made an interlocutory applicatio...
Atanu Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN256
Subhro Kamal Mukheijee, J. 1. This is an application for Contempt of Court on the allegation of violation of the order dated September 11, 2002.2. The writ petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ('the writ petition' in short), inter alia, complaining inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the writ petitioner for his admission in first year class either in B.Sc. (Agriculture) or B.Sc. (Horticulture) honours course for the session 2002-03 in the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya.3. The said writ petition has been disposed of on September 11, 2003, in presence of the learned advocates for the said University, inter alia, 'by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to make a detailed representation for ventilating his grievances addressed to the respondent No. 2 by ten days from date. In the event such representation is made, the respondent No. 2 will consider such representation sympathetically, but in accor...
Tarak Nath Sha Vs. Bhutoria Brothers Private Ltd. and Manmal Bhutoria ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN142
D. K. Seth, J.1. There two appeals F.A. No. 87 of 1988 and F.A. No, 88 of 1988 arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 6th October, 1989 passed in Title Suit No. 812 of 1984 and Title Suit No. 240 of 1984 respectively. These two appeals are heard together. The appellant had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for additional evidence in respect of some documents being correspondences with the Postal Authorities.2. The cases in the two suits are based on the same facts out of which two different reliefs are being sought for by the respective parties against each other. The narration of facts-hereafter would give us a clear picture. The appellant Tarak Nath Sha (Tarak Nath) stepped into the shoes of one Ram Kewal Sha as trustee in respect of the suit property. M/s. Bhutoria Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (BBL), the defendant in the Title Suit No. 812 of 1984 obtained a lease of the suit property for the purpose of residence of its Director, Manma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›