Kolkata Court December 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.
Ms. Zahida Rehman Vs. the Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT126(HC)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This review application involves the fate of two tribal girls of these Islands. I would have been happy if I was not a party to the Division Bench hearing this review application. After hearing the review application I was placed in a peculiar situation where despite my fullest sympathy for those two tribal girls I am unable to find out a solution by which I can protect the interest of both of them. As I have said, I have been placed in a most unpleasant situation while writing this judgment.2. In 19th century these Islands were virgin and were not intercepted by urban population. Only population of these Islands was the tribals maintaining the culture and heritage of our country. In early part of 20th century when settlements of prisoners and thereafter by the them East Pakistani refugees in these Islands were done so called development started by changing the nature and character of these Islands and turning it to be an urbanised society. Administration run...
Debabrata Sarkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT445(HC),[2005(107)FLR311]
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty imposed on him in the disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated by the respondents by issuing the charge sheet dated May 30th 1997.2. The enquiry officer recorded the findings that allegations made against the petitioner were proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service by his order dated April 3rd, 1998.3. Advocate for the parties have argued at length and they have cited to me a large number of decisions. I should not be thought of disrespectful to the authorities for not dealing with them, which I am not doing for the reason that, in my judgment, on the admitted facts and accepted principles of law, the penalty imposed, and the findings of the enquiry officer, cannot be sustained.4. Allegations made in the charge sheet, I agree with advocate for the petitioner, were vague in nature. I am, however, unable to accept his contention that the charge sheet was issued with a cl...
Webel Video Devices Ltd. Vs. Prasanta Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN8
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 15.06.1998 passed by a learned Judge of the Writ Court. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge of the Writ Court was, inter alia, pleased to quash the order of dismissal dated 13.11.1988 passed against the respondents/writ petitioners and allowed the writ petition.2. Facts relating to filing of the writ petition are noted as follows:While the respondents/writ petitioners were working as employees of Webel Video Devices Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said company'), they were served with a chargesheet dated 09.04.1986 in which it was alleged that the writ petitioners were guilty of riotous and disorderly behaviour during the working hours at the establishment and such acts on the part of the writ petitioners are subversive of discipline. The relevant portion of the said chargesheet against the writ petitioner No. 1 is as follows:It has be...
Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN220(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. The points raised:This appeal was admitted on the following two grounds:'1. Whether, when a second revised return was filed under section 139(5) of the Act within the specified period of one year from the end of the relevant assessment order (year), the assessing officer is obliged to adjust the demand made under section 143(1)(a) raised on the basis of the earlier returns and whether the Tribunal is justified in law in deciding the case without considering the legal position?2. Whether, in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed a revised return on 7-1-1991 claiming a loss of Rs. 2,49,05,044 and carry forward the loss of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 6,26,26,557, the Tribunal without deciding the question as to whether there was any reduction of loss consequent upon the filing of the second revised return on 7-1-1991 could send the matter back when there was no dispute regarding the carry forward unabsorbed depreciation of a sum of Rs. 6,26,26,557?*Facts:2. ...
Bibekananda Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-2004
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN33
Amitava Lala, J. 1. On 25th April, 2002 a quotation was offered for ferry service at Uttarasan Bridge,16 kilometer of Ramnagar-Bazarshaw Chowrigachha Khagra Ghat Road, under Maurakshi Bridge Highway Division, of Murshidabad Highway Division II was hung up in the office of the Block Development Officer, Beldanga II. Petitioner's offer was accepted. By an office order dated 22nd May, 2002 work order was issued by the Executive Engineer, Murshidabad Highway Division II on behalf of the Governor of State of West Bengal for running the ferry service in the aforesaid area. The condition under the work order is that offer will remain valid for two years or till the completion of the proposed bridge work from the issue of the letter. Such work order was duly communicated to the Sabhadhipali of the Murshidabad Zilla Parishad, Superintending Engineer, State Highway Circle No. III, Public Works(Roads) Department, District Magistrate, Murshidabad, Purta Bibhag, Karmadhyaksha, Superintendent of Pol...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Jag Jeevan Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-17-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR1202],(2005)IIILLJ679Cal
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The instant appeal was filed by the Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated July 12, 2004 passed in W.P. No. 174 of 2003 filed by the Respondent abovenamed.2. The Respondent/Petitioner was an employee of Nehru Yuva Kendra, Kamorta. The writ petitioner was on leave for the period from February 12, 1996 to February 25, 1996. He applied for extension upto March 22, 1996. He joined on March 23, 1996 and served the appellant till May 20, 1996. The Appellant by an order dated April 19, 1996 asked the writ petitioner to hand over charge. Accordingly, the writ petitioner handed over charge on May 20, 1996. However, he was neither assigned any duty after May 20, 1996 nor he was paid salary since January, 1996. On November 5, 1996 the appellant authority issued a Memorandum, wherein it was stated that a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated as against the writ petitioner/respondent for long unauthorised absence. The authority observed that the...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Peacock Plywood (P) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal97
D.K. Seth, J.1. The Questions & the Facts :The question to be answered in this case is as to the invocability of the risk/peril clause of the Insurance Policy covering the goods in transition. In order to answer the question, it is necessary to refer to the facts in brief.1.1 Plaintiff/respondent sought to recover a sum of Rs. 49,48,407/- on the strength of a policy of insurance issued by the defendant containing Institute Cargo Clause (C). The plaintiff claimed that the goods were insured for safe arrival at Calcutta. But the goods did never arrive at Calcutta. The goods were lost by non delivery and the peril insured against. Alternatively, it was contended that the goods were reasonably abandoned since unavoidable, inasmuch as it could not be retrieved without incurring excessive and unreasonable expenditure exceeding the value of the goods. This resulted in constructive total loss due to peril/risk insured. The notice of abandonment was given to the defendant through a letter dated...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Saktigarh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2004
Reported in: 2005(188)ELT8(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. The point raised : Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the respondent, has raised a very interesting point on a question of law as to the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to assail the maintainability of the application for condonation of delay in filing the reference.1.1 He drew our attention to Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and points out that this Section 35H was inserted by Finance Act, 1999 replacing the earlier provisions where the period of limitation was less than the period of limitation provided in the amended provision. According to him, the legislature had intended that this extension of period of limitation has to be construed to be the ultimate period of limitation without any application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. According to him, when the legislature omitted to provide any power to condone the delay, in that event the provision is to be construed to have impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation...
Allahabad Bank Vs. M.L. Bose and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN642
1. The respondent No. 1 before us filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 318 of 2000, which was initially taken up on 31st January, 2000, when certain directions were given by the learned Single Judge to the appellant bank in the presence of its learned Advocate-on-Record. Thereafter, directions were also given for filing of affidavits on 9th March, 2000. As will appear from the materials on record, the Advocate-on-Record for the bank forwarded to the Advocate-on-Record for the writ petitioners-respondents an advance copy of the bank's affidavit-in-opposition on 24th March, 2000, but the said affidavit-in-opposition does not appear to have been filed in Court.2. The writ petition appeared after an interval of almost 4 years in the warning list of the learned Single Judge on 11th March, 2004, as well as on 12th March, 2004, when the same does not appear to have been called on for hearing. On 15th March, 2004, when the matter was ultimately taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the appel...
Sushil Mondal Vs. Shibdas Patra @ Shibu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN534
Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. As the facts and points of law involved in these revisional applications are identical, I intend to dispose of both the revisional applications by this common judgment and order.2. Facts of the case as it appears from the contents of the revisional applications are that, Sravani Patra (since deceased) was married with Shibdas Patra (petitioner of C. R. R. No. 748/03) on 8.2.88. Out of their wedlock a male child was born to the couple namely Snehasis Patra @ Suchasis Patra. Subsequently, Sravani being unable to bear the torture of her husband and other in-laws committed suicide on 31.10.91 and on the basis of her unnatural death a police case was started which ended in submission of chargesheet. The trial that followed in Sessions Trial No. 8/July/95, the husband Shibdas Patra @ Shibu was convicted and he preferred an appeal and was enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal. The child born to Shibdas and Sravani was then aged two years when Sravani comm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »