Kolkata Court February 2004 Judgments
Bank of India Vs. Sankar Prasad Jaiswal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT537(HC)
A.K. Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the impugned order being No. 41 dated 22.05.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). 2nd Court, Barasat, 24 Pgs. (N) in T.S. 252/95.2. The circumstances leading to the present revision are that the present petitioner filed T.S. 77/93 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for a decree for Rs. 3,15,913.66p., interest, charge, sale & realisation of the disputed properties etc. The properties mortgaged by defend ants/respondents 2 & 3 are situated at Rajarhat in Dumdum Municipality within the jurisdiction of Barasat Court and outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. In view of the lack of jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta to entertain any suit relating to the said immovable properties at Rajarhat, the petitioner had filed Mortgage Suit being No. T.S 252/1995 in the Court of Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Barasat against the d...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Safi Vs. Abdul Samad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT482(HC)
A.K. Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order being No. 109 dated 19.06.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Murshidabad in Misc. Case 42/1990.2. The circumstances leading to the present revision are that the present petitioner filed T.S. 123 of 1967 in the Court of learned Munsif, 1st Court, Jangipur for eviction of the opposite parties/defendants from the disputed property and recovery of khas possession. He preferred appeal being T.A. 59/74 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif and the same was allowed ex parte on 7.10.1977. The application under Order 41, Rule 21 read with Section 151 of Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the opposite parties/ defendants, being registered as Misc. case 60/77 for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed for default on 25.5.79 followed by another application under the same provisions along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Kumar @ Lai Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN205
G.C. De, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, and order of conviction dated July 31, 1997 and sentence dated August 1, 1997 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court of the N.D.P.S. Act, Howrah in T. R. Case No. 38 of 1995. By the said judgment, the learned Judge found the present appellant Gautam Kumar @ Lai guilty for an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act, for brevity) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for a further period of two years.2. The case in brief is that Nabani Dhar Paul, Intelligence Officer of the Narcotic Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as N.C.B., for brevity), Eastern Zonal Unit, filed a complaint before the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd. Court at Howrah on 21.12.1995 alleging that acting on intelligence, a batch of officers ...
Tag this Judgment!Sandhya Das and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN671
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd April, 1998 and sentence dated 24th April, 1998 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under the N.D.P.S. Act at Howrah in N.D.P.S. Case No. T.R.-25/97 (Crime No. 11/N.C.E./Cal/97). By the said judgment both accused Smt. Sandhya Das & Smt. Dayal Dasi Das were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and convicted thereunder, and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for one year each. 2. On 22nd August, 1997, a complaint was filed by one Sushil Kumar Das, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit, Calcutta, as a public servant alleging inter alia that acting on an information, a batch of the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as NCB for brevity) intercepted two ladies i.e. Sandhya Das and Dayal Dasi Das on 26.5.97 at 10.00 hours...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN526
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The writ petitioner was appointed as a Memo Writer in the year 1965 by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, he got promoted and ultimately he was posted as Samabayika-in-Charge with effect from 1.4.1997. He was also directed to perform the additional duties of the purchase officer from 10.11.97. The petitioner contended that suddenly by an order dated 31.3,1998 the respondent No. 3 directed Dwijen Chatterjee, Supervisor and working in the Accounts Section to take over the charge of Samabayika Section of the respondent No. 4 from the petitioner who was then in-charge of the Samabayika Section, after the annual verification of stock/cash of the Samabayika Section for the year 1997-98. In the said order the petitioner was also directed to make over charge of the Samabayika Section to Dwijen Chatterjee after the annual verification of stock/cash for the year 1997-1998 was over and to continue to work in the Accounts Section until further orders.2. The petitioner stated that...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Om Prakash Vs. Smt. Dhankumari Dudraj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT431(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This appeal arises out of a reversal decree. Such reversal decree is arising out of the finding of the Court of first instance that the suit be dismissed on contest with cost as against the defendant.2. Out of the issues, maintainability of the suit in its present form, validity of the notice, non joinder of necessary parties, and all such points were decided by holding the above view. The first appellate Court carefully considered the various aspects of the matter. The first Appellate Court held that there was a joint tenancy, and the notice addressed to and served upon the sole defendant, and presumed that no notice of attornment was served upon the defendant etc.3. It is factually admitted position that the notice was served upon the defendant for ejectment from the suit premises c/o a particular firm. It is the case of the defendant that he or their family members are running business under the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Therefore, the notice which had been served ...
Tag this Judgment!i.T.C. Limited and ors. Vs. Amitava Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN335
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This revisional application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of the proceedings bearing complaint Case No. 82-C/2003 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Bankura under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company and the petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman of the said company. Said petitioner No. 2 assumed the office of the Chairman of the petitioner No. 1 company on and from 01.01.1996, The 0. P. is the managing partner of M/s. Aswini Kumar Dutta & Sons, a registered partnership firm situated in the Bankura town. Business relationship in between the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party started in the year 1980 as per terms and conditions which were printed overleaf the purchase orders and/or the invoice. The opposite party's firm submitted a security deposit to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the month of March, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Nath Das and ors. Vs. Sandhyarani Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN89
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is present. Learned Advocate for the State is also present. None appears for the O.P. No. 1. The petitioner has filed affidavit of service as well as the postal acknowledgement in respect of the O.P. No. 1. Inspite of that, the O.P. No. 1 did not appear in the present hearing. As such, the matter is taken up for hearing in presence of the learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as for the State. The case of the petitioners is that the O.I. No. 1 filed a petition of complaint against the present petitioners and another person and on the basis of that the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process under Section 494/109 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner No. 1 entered appearance before the learned Magistrate on 28.02.1990 while the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 entered appearances on 25.4.90. But uptill now, no evidence was produced in support of the prosecution case and as such there is violation of the manda...
Tag this Judgment!Partha Sanyal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN153
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ('the writ petition' in short) challenging the circular letter dated February 11, 2004 issued by the Election Commission of India addressed to the Chief Secretaries and the Chief Electoral Officers of the States and Union Territories concerned about the posting of officers in the awake of general elections of the Lok Sabha and the State Legislative Assemblies. In the said letter the Commission communicated its policy that an officer, who has worked for four years or more in the same district, should be transferred out so that free and fair election could be conducted. It was, further, conveyed that the said Commission has decided that no officer connected with elections should be allowed to continue in his/her home district. It was stated that those instructions, inter alia, would be applicable to the Officers-in-Charge of the police stations, whether in the rank of Inspector or Sub-Inspe...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Cal)123,[2004]271ITR73(Cal)
Barin Ghosh, J.1. Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as was applicable during the relevant assessment year permitted the Assessing Officer to send an intimation to the assessee specifying the amount of tax payable by him where a return has been made Under Section 139 or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142. The statute provided that such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand issued Under Section 156 of the Act and all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. Section 156 of the Act provided that when a tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is pay- able in consequence of any order passed under the Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable. At the same time, Section 220(1) of the Act provided that any amount, otherwise than by way of advance tax specified as payable in a notice of demand Under Section 156 shall be paid within 30 days of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »