Kolkata Court October 2004 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.
Contai Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Sagar Food Products and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN289
Alok Kumar Basu, J. 1. As common question of law is involved in all the three appeals, we propose to dispose of all the three appeals by a common2. In M.A.T. Nos. 1493 and 1494 of 2004 appellants and the respondents are common while in M.A.T. No 1790 of 2004 the Krishnagar City Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors. are the appellants and Sukumar Ghose and Anr. are the respondents. The respondents in all the three appeals figured as writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge whose judgment and order is subject-matter of challenge in all the three appeals.3. The writ petitioner respondents lost in the award case brought by the appellants and all the writ petitioners respondents thereafter preferred appeal challenging the award as contemplated in Section 136 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Admittedly all such appeals were filed within 30 days after obtaining respective certified copy of the award and admittedly, all the three app...
Usha Chatterjee Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN11
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 3rd August, 1990 passed by the appellate authority, namely, the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India.2. By the said order, the Zonal Manager, as the appellate authority, decided the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15th June, 1988 passed by the Senior Divisional Manager, Calcutta Suburban Division of the said Life Insurance Corporation of India in respect of the petitioner herein.3. From the records it appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30th December, 1987 alleging certain lapses on the part of the petitioner as the agent of the said Corporation. The alleged lapses mentioned in the said show cause notice dated 30th December, 1987 are reproduced hereinbelow:1) 'You have replied in negative against Q. No. 8 of your agency application dated 4.6.82 when actually you were and are related to Sri Nirmal Kumar Chatterjee, an ag...
Arun Kumar Basu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT549(HC),[2005(104)FLR667],(2005)IILLJ364Cal
D.K. Seth, J.1. I have the privilege of going through the judgment and order of brother Sinha, J. I fully agree with the same. However, I would like to add a few words of mine.1.1. The order of dismissal of the petitioner/appellant from service was set aside by an order dated 28th April 1995 passed in CO No. 1888(W) of 1993 with direction upon the disciplinary authority to consider the representation of the appellant/petitioner against the enquiry report and to pass an appropriate order. The representation having been rejected by the disciplinary authority after such consideration, another writ petition challenging the merit of the decision of the disciplinary authority and that of the appellate authority. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11th of April 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in CO No. 18735(W) of 1996 dismissing the said writ petition.Appellant's submission;2. Mr. Moitra, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned single Judge had failed...
Ram Avtar Agarwal, Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal234,(2005)2CALLT207(HC)
P.K. Chattopadhyay, J.1. In these three writ petitions facts are similar and issues raised therein for consideration are also identical. Accordingly, these three writ petitions are decided and disposed of by this common judgment.2. All the writ petitioners are the M.R. Distributors under the Public Distribution System and functioning in the hill areas of Darjeeling District.3. The writ petitioners, namely, Shri Brij Mohan Garg, Shri Ram Avtar Agarwal and Shri Rohit Kumar Gupta were appointed M.R. Distributors in respect of the areas Ghoom, Darjeeling Sadar and Kalimpong respectively.4. Subsequently, the respondent authorities decided to appoint Additional M.R. Distributors in the district of Darjeeling and by the written communication dated 27 February, 2004, Joint Secretary, Food & Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal informed the Director, D.D.P.S., Food & Supplies Department, West Bengal about the decision of the government regarding appointment of Shri Bimal Dalmia as M.R...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. B. Yellappa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN250,2005(3)ESC2020,[2005(104)FLR416],(2005)ILLJ1057Cal
D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated May 15, 2003 of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. W.P.No. 7818 (W) of 2000 preferred against an award by the learned Labour Court disapproving the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was only because one month's pay in full was not tendered. The amount was short of the full amount. Therefore, it is only on a technical ground the approval having been refused, the employer is not liable to pay full back wages as has been held by the learned single Judge. He relied on certain decisions to which we shall refer at appropriate stage.2. Mr. Dasan, on the other hand, contends that until approval under Section 33(2)(b) is accorded, the order of termination remains inchoate and the relation between employer and employee continues and is not ceased. He also relied on certain decisions to support his contention to which we sha...
Dwijadas Banerjee and Pritimoy Panda @ Pitu Panda Vs. State of West Be ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT55(HC),2005(1)CHN537,2005CriLJ3151
P.N. Sinha, J.1. These two revisional application having been heard together involves identical question of law regarding power of the Magistrate to ask the accused petitioners to give their voice for recording or to rendition of their voice to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) for comparison with the voice earlier recorded in tape-record. As the points involved are identical questions of law, I intend to dispose of both the revisional applications by this common judgment and order.2. The facts of the case as it appears from the revisional applications is that a suo moto complaint/FIR was lodged by Inspector Md. Abdur Rashid of CID, West Bengal alleging inter alia that in the morning of 12.5.04 he received a source information to the effect that two persons in the age group of 55/60 years would come to Russa Road (South) and crossing of 3rd Lane in front of Narendra Mistanna Bhandar under Jadavpur police station between 13.00 to 14.00 hours with one manuscript containing the literary wo...
Muktipada Bag and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT178(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. The writ petitioners herein are the claimants for the post of Assistant Teachers. The petitioners in the writ petition has annexed the copies of certificates in support of their educational qualification. The petitioners stated that after promulgation of School Service Commission Act, 1997 teachers are to be recruited through School Service Commission. According to the petitioners School Service Commission has been divided in four zones i.e. Eastern, Western, Southern and Northern and the petitioners belong to Western region. In the writ petition the petitioners have quoted the definition of Board, Council, School, Madrassah, Higher Secondary Council, Secondary Council, etc. The definition of teacher as given in 2P of the School Service Commission Act (hereinafter termed as 'said Act') has also been given in the writ petition. The petitioners in paragraph 14 have stated that in Section 7 of the said Act the functions of Regional Commission have been prescribed. I...
Abdur Rahim Dewan Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN522
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an appellant before the West Bengal Wakf Tribunal ('Tribunal') and is directed against order dated 27th February, 2003 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 4 of 2002 thereby affirming the order of the Wakf Board by which the petitioner was removed from the post of Mutawalli of the concerned Wakf.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present application may be summarised thus :(a) In the C.S. record-of-rights names of four persons namely (i) Nur Mahammad Dewan, (ii) Hedayat Ali Dewan and (iii) Enayat Ali Dewan, all sons of Late Munsur Ali Dewan and (iv) Rashida Bibi, daughter of Late Munsur Ali Dewan were recorded as Mutawalli in respect of Wakf property.(b) Hedayat Ali Dewan died long ago leaving his only son, Abdur Rahim Dewan, the present petitioner herein. In the year 1964 Nur Mahammad Dewan died leaving his only daughter Mst. Hasina Bibi.(c) On 13th September, 1965 t...
Sri Bidyut Kumar Sett Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD148(Kol.)
1. The following question has been referred to the Special Bench for decision: "Whether, the Tribunal fee on an appeal against the order of penalty levied Under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is governed by Clause (d) of Section 253(6) or Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 253(6) of the I.T.Act?" The assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) of 14.2.2003. The appeal was against the levy of penalty of Rs. 9,990 levied Under Section 271(1)(c). The appeal was accompanied by a filing fee of Rs. 500. The Registry had marked the appeal as having been filed without the proper filing fee. According to the Registry the filing fee was paid short by Rs. 2,912. Apparently the Registry calculated the filing fee on the basis of the assessed income which was Rs. 3,41,220 as per the assessment order. According to Section 253(6)(c), where the total income of the assessee, "in the case to which the appeal relates" is more than Rs. 2 lacs, the appeal to the Tribunal sh...
Smt. Jayasree Roychowdhury Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)92ITD400(Kol.)
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the ld.CIT(A)'s order dated 5th March,2004 in the matter of an assessment made under Section 143(3) of the Act pertaining to the assessment year 2001 -02.2. Grounds No. 1 & 2 are directed against the ld.CIT(A)'s order in confirming the A.O. is action in treating the profit of Rs. 4,33,588/- arising from share transactions as "speculation profit" instead of short-term capital gains claimed by the assessee.3. The assessee's contention that the assessee had earned a short-term capital gain of Rs. 4,33,588/- from sale and purchase of shares, was rejected by the A.O. by discussing and holding as under :- " During the relevant previous year, the assessee showed a short-term capital gain of Rs. 4,33,588/- which was set off against brought forward unabsorbed long-term capital loss of Rs. 6,69,990/- pertaining to the A.Y. 1994-95. The details are as under:---------------------------------------------------------------------------...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »