Kolkata Court February 2004 Judgments
Cosmosteels Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal53,I(2006)BC237,[2005]126CompCas210(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J. 1. In between the respective parties the following suits were instituted in the High Court at Calcutta.(See Table below)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Suit No. Filed on Plaintiff Defendants ClaimRs.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------a)1046 17-9-87 Cosmosteels (P) Ltd. Punjab National Bank 6,36,631/-b)547 7-7-88 Punjab National Bank Cosmosteels (P) Ltd.& 18,56,557/-Others. c)118 20-2-89 The Federal Bank Ltd. Cosmosteels (P) Ltd. & 80,61,999/-Others.d)61 22-2-93 Cosmosteels (P) Ltd. The Federal Bank Ltd. 2,11,73,282/Punjab National Bank& Others.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Excepting in one suit the respective written statements were filed in the other suits. According to the petitioners, those suits were awaiting for final disposal. Various interim orders were passed in connection with those suits by the High Court at Ca...
Tag this Judgment!Debjani Niyogi Vs. Bani Niyogi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN223
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a probate proceeding and is directed against a judgment and decree dated 16.09.1999 passed in Original Suit No. 5 of 1998 by which the application for probate to the Will in question was granted after a contest. The appellant before us, who contested the said probate proceedings, is the wife of the testator. The testator executed a Will on 14.02.1987, while living in his residential premises at 259, Darga Road, Calcutta - 17 and died on 01.06.1987 in the said residential premises.2. Under the said Will, the testator appointed his two sisters, being the propounders to the said Will, as executrices. The grant of probate of Will was challenged by the appellant/wife and another sister of the testator, viz. Smt. Kalyani Moitra, who on her death, was substituted by Sri Anil Kumar Moitra and Soumyadarshan Moitra. But apart from filing the affidavit, the heirs of the deceased sister of the testator did not contest the grant of probate.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Cit Vs. Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Kol.)934
The appeal of the revenue for asst. yr. 1998-99 is directed against the order dated 21-3-2003, of Commissioner (Appeals), Central-II, Kolkata.The only dispute is relating to deduction of Rs. 8,34,107 written off by the assessee on account of MODVAT receivable account in view of general exemption of jute products from excise duty granted by the Government. We have heard the parties and perused the records.The relevant facts briefly stated are that the assessee-company is engaged in the manufacture of jute products. The assessee was entitled to Modified Value Added Tax relief (MODVAT). The said scheme was introduced for the first time in 1986 with a- view to provide relief from the cascading effect of the excise duty dues. The scheme was initially available in respect of certain inputs, such as, raw material. It was subsequently extended to cover certain specified capital goods. By virtue of the said scheme, the credit of duty of central excise or additional duty of customs in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Sushanta Kumar Das Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT133(HC),[2004(102)FLR886],(2004)IIILLJ1025Cal
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us being aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition being W.P. No. 3516(W) of 2001 by order dated June 26, 2001.2. Having heard Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury assisted by Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and Mr. Kamal Kr. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondent in the appeal, we are of the view that the only question arising for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether after issuing the charge sheet under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971 for imposition of major penalty, for which the rule envisages holding of a regular departmental enquiry, the authority can, after examining the reply to the charge sheet inflict a minor punishment without holding a regular departmental enquiry.3. Learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Food Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendua Prasad Roychowdhury and ors. Vs. Prithwish Ghoshal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN74
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of twin orders being No. 170 dated 27.8.2002 & No. 167 dated 2.5.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 1st Court, Diamond Harbour in T.S. 90/1975.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that the petitioners brought the said suit as plaintiffs for eviction of licences from the disputed property stating that Aurobinda Ghoshal, predecessor of O.P. Nos. 1 to 3. was living at the disputed property as a licensee of them and on his death in 1973, on the prayer of his heirs the O.Ps. they were granted licence to live there till the plaintiffs asked for possession. On revoking licence the plaintiffs asked them to deliver khas possession. The plaintiffs sought for amendment of the plaint by incorporating a prayer for a decree for declaration of title in 'kha' schedule property and injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs and fr...
Tag this Judgment!Saurendra Nath Maity Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN152
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The petitioner, who was a member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service, retired on superannuation on 31st October, 2002, while functioning as Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, VIII Bench, Calcutta. While the petitioner was in service, his name was forwarded to the Judicial Department along with the names of two other senior officers of the service for the purpose of filling up the vacancy in the post of Chairman, Municipal Building Tribunal, created under Section 415 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.2. Pursuant to the above, the petitioner was selected and appointed as such Chairman of the Municipal Building Tribunal by Notification No. 770 dated 11th October, 2002, issued by the Department of Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal. The order was to take effect on the date of assumption of charge by the petitioner. The petitioner assumed charge of the office of Chairman of the said Tribunal in the afternoon of 31st October, 2002, which ...
Tag this Judgment!Uttam Kumar Ghose and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Ram Gobinda Shib Thakur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN469
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. A very interesting question of law is involved in this application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 1st August, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah in connection with Title Suit No. 112 of 2002.2. Opposite Party No. 1 of the present application filed Title Suit No. 112 of 2002 on behalf of family deity representing herself as sebait/next friend of the deity for declaration and injunction in respect of the property in dispute and the declaration prayed for related to the character of the suit property. One of the defendant in that suit is contesting the suit by filing written statement and defendant Nos. 4 to 13 and 15 and 16 of the said suit did not file any written statement and when the suit was fixed for ex parte disposal against them, they came forward and filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule ll(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. It was the sp...
Tag this Judgment!Minu Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN670
Soumitra Pal, J. 1. Instant appeal arises out of an order dated 4.10.1999 passed by the learned Trial Judge dismissing the writ petition.2. The said order is as set out hereunder :'In the writ petition the panel prepared by the Managing Committee of the School in question for the purpose of appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher in language group has been challenged. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the panel has long been approved by the concerned D.I. of Schools and the concerned candidates were also appointed pursuant to such approval and again such appointment has also been approved by the concerned respondent authority.3. In such circumstances, this writ petition has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed'.4. The reliefs as prayed for by the appellant/petitioner in the writ petition which are relevant are as follows :(a) To issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect...
Tag this Judgment!Rubber Board Vs. General Secretary, Saithankari Plantation Workers' Un ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN315,(2004)IIILLJ442Cal
P.K. Biswas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Single Bench of this Court dated 16th January, 2004, whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ application being No. 046 of 2003.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under :The petitioner/appellant filed a writ application challenging an order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration which was signed by one Shri P.K. Minz, Assistant Secretary (Labour). By the said order the Development Officer, Rubber Board, was informed that the permission for retrenchment of its 52 permanent workers and 6 casual labourers were not granted by the competent authority. It has also been alleged by the petitioner/ appellant that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner and without taking note of the relevant facts and as such, the order impugned is patently illegal and violative of the principal of natural justice, sin...
Tag this Judgment!Dulal Chandra Bayen Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT147(HC)
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This writ petition was filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, whereby the earlier writ petition filed by the present petitioner, was dismissed.2. Facts relevant for deciding the present proceeding are that originally one Durga Bala Acooli, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 2 was the owner of the disputed premises being No. 18/1. Ramesh Mitra Road, Kolkata. Ratan Chandra Bayen, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was inducted as thika tenant in respect of the land in the said premises, whereupon his son Birendra Chandra Bayen constructed temporary structure on the said land for carrying on motor repairing workshop. The respondent No. 2 realised rent in respect of the land against receipt. Petitioner along with respondent Nos. 3 to 9 became thika tenant of the said land by way of succession from the aforesaid predecessor-in-interest. After the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »