Kolkata Court December 2004 Judgments

Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (Ee) and anr. Vs. Priyadeep Ghose and o ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2029,[2005(104)FLR919]

Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. The learned Single Judge directed upgradation of the post of the petitioners in E&M; Grade to T&S; Grade-A at E-1 level on the expiry of seven years on the basis of the circular dated 20th February, 1987, which speaks of the method of A.C.R. and interview on the ground that in respect of mining cadre, no written test is necessary, whereas by subsequent Circulars, particularly, Circulars dated 28th April, 1987, 30th April, 1987 and 29th August, 1988, written test was made mandatory for E&M; Grade Cadre, but this was not explained in the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the appellant in the writ petition. In other words, the relief was granted on the question of discrimination, which has not been explained by the Coal India Limited.2. The question of discrimination is based on Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The principle is of rational classification. If comparable grades come within the same classification, in that event, any discrimination would hit the...

icici Bank Limited Vs. Coventry Coil-o-matic (Haryana) Limited and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: IV(2005)BC91,(2005)2CALLT77(HC),2005(1)CHN341,[2006]130CompCas289(Cal)

ORDERSubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. The plaintiff institutes this suit, inter alia, for declaration that the promoters' shares as undertaken to be pledged with the plaintiff are charged in favour of the plaintiff, for declaration that any pledge and/or charge of shares of the promoters of the defendant No. 1 is void, perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with, encumbering or creating any third party interest or from creating any charge in respect of the promoters' shares of the defendant No. 1 or any assets or securities as mentioned in the loan documents or owned by the defendants as, also, various units of the defendants, mandatory direction upon the defendants to deposit the sale proceeds of their properties, for mandatory direction upon the defendant to pledge shares in favour of the plaintiff as was undertaken by the defendants, for specific performance of pledge, covenants, promises, assurances given by the defendants to the plaintiff.2. The said suit was fil...

Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (Unit of Usha Sewing Machine Works) Vs. Sec ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(2)CHN21

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This is a writ petition against an order of the Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, dated June 27th, 1989 refusing approval to the employer company under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 33(2)(b).2. The third respondent workman was proceeded against departmentally. In the chargesheet dated March 22nd, 1983 it was alleged that having been caught red handed in the act of theft by the security guard, he confessed his guilt and sought permission to resign.3. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer, and after giving opportunity to show cause, passed the order dated September 23rd, 1983, the relevant portions of which read:'Your explanation to the second show cause notice has been considered. We do not find any reason/justification to review our proposed decision which we conveyed to you in our notice, dated 5 July, 1983. You have been rightly found guilty of theft and what you did also amounted to ...

Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkateswar Investment and

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

1. This appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 1997-98 is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals). In exercise of the powers vested Under Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (I.T.A.T.), has constituted this Special Bench to decide the following question arising in the case of the present assessee :- "When the loss in share dealing suffered by the assessee is more than the income of the assessee from other sources in the assessment year 1997-98, whether the assessee can be said to be having principal business of granting loans and advances and not hit by Explanation to Section 73 of the I.T.Act merely because in the preceding assessment years the assessee was not dealing in shares but was having interest income from loans and advances and rental income from leasing." 2. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- (1) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in...

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Venkateswar Investment and

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2005)93ITD177(Kol.)

1. This appeal by the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1997-98 is directed against the order of the CIT(A). In exercise of the powers vested under Section 255(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), the President of the Tribunal, has constituted this Special Bench to decide the following question arising in the case of the present assessee : "When the loss in share dealing suffered by the assessee is more than the income of the assessee from other sources in the asst. yr. 1997-98, whether the assessee can be said to be having principal business of granting loans and advances and not hit by Explanation to Section 73 of the IT Act merely because in the preceding assessment years the assessee was not dealing in shares but was having interest income from loans and advances and rental income from leasing." 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "(1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in treating the speculation loss to be as business loss, w...

Mandira Mookerjee Vs. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and o ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2005Cal108,2005(4)CHN694

D.K. Seth, J.1. The controversy :Reliefs were sought by the respondent/ writ petitioner for execution of the conveyance pursuant to an agreement for purchase of a flat under the scheme formulated by the developer under agreement with the owner before the Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum had occasion to impound the agreement between the owner promoter and the consumer on the ground that it was not properly stamped. However, Mr. Talukdar on behalf of the respondent points out that proper stamp-duty was paid by the consumer on the agreement between him and the owner/promoter. But Mr. Bhattacharya on behalf of the appellant contends that this agreement was not registered though it is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 Sub-section (1-A) of the Registration Act incorporated through amendment by Act 48 of 2001 with effect from 24th September 2001, since the agreement was entered into thereafter in October 2001. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhattacharya, no relief can be had on the bas...

Pawan Kumar Santhalia and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2005)2CALLT427(HC)

Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for setting aside the order dated 4.9.03 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Malda in G.R. Case No. 1604 of 1997 arising out of Kaliachak P.S. Case No. 206 dated 4.12.97 thereby directing the Superintendent of Police (in short S.P.), Malda for further investigation into the said case and rejecting FRT No. 21 dated 14.2.03 and also rejecting prayer of the Investigating Officer (in short I.O.) to accord permission to initiate a proceeding under Section 182/211 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) against the de facto complainant and also praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1604/97.2. The facts of the case as it transpires from the revisional application is that Bina Devi Santhalia, the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of the ...

Md. MahasIn Sk. Vs. Sayeda Khatun Bibi

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: I(2006)DMC48

Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.6.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Murshidabad in Criminal Motion No. 70 of 1996 thereby dismissing the motion and affirming the judgment and order dated 13.11.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Berhampore in M.R. Case No. 14 of 1994 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. allowing maintenance @ Rs. 500 per month for the illegitimate child of opposite party Sayeda Khatun Bibi and giving effect to order of the maintenance amount from 10.1.1994 till attainment of majority of the said child.2. Facts of the case, as it appears from the materials-on-record and the lower Court record is that, the opposite party Sayeda Khatun Bibi filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Berhampore, Murshidabad praying for maintenance ...