Kolkata Court February 2004 Judgments
Shri Mahendra Pratap Mishra Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT278(HC),2004(3)CHN623
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner-Shri Mahendra Pratap Mishra, challenging the order passed by the Assistant General Manager (Admn.), Andaman & Nicobar Telecom Circle, on 31st March, 2003 together with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner to the post of Junior Hindi Translator as the petitioner is working in the said post since 26.5.1997.2. It has, inter alia, been contended by the petitioner in the writ application that initially he was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the office of the Director of Postal Services, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in the year 1986. While in the aforesaid service, the petitioner was given an in-service training for Hindi Translator at CTB, Calcutta and his name was sponsored by the Director of Postal Services at Port Blair to undergo the said training programme for Hindi Translator with effect from October, 1991 to December, 1991 at CTB, Calc...
Tag this Judgment!Samir Kr. Paul Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN265
1. Let the affidavit of service filed today be kept with the record.2. Heard learned Counsel of the respective parties.3. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India one Samir Kumar Pal, father of a ten years old missing girl 'Shilpa' with effect from 20th November, 2001, has prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for tracing out the said girl, or in the alternative a direction entrusing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for taking up the investigation for the purpose of tracing out that missing girl.4. It is contended that inspite of lapse of more than two years the investigating agency of the State having failed to recover the missing girl, a writ of habeas corpus is required to be issued.5. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that investigation of the case was taken up by the local police station and subsequently it was taken up by CID and investigation is still in progress.6. In support of this contention ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramprasad Saha Vs. Kamal Kumar Talukdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: III(2004)BC237,(2004)1CALLT400(HC),2004(2)CHN340
A.K. Bisi, J.1. The instant revision application arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipurduar on 4.7.01 in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1999(A). By the impugned judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipurduar dismissed the criminal appeal preferred by the present petitioner as appellant and affirmed the judgment and order passed by the SDJM, Alipurduar on 27.8.99 in C.R. Case No. 506/97 whereby the learned SDJM found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 72,000/- in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.2. The facts anterior to filing of the instant revision application may succinctly be stated thus. On 19.12.97 the complainant Kamal Kumar Talukdar presently O.P. No. 1 lodged a petition of complaint under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Singh Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN446
P.K. Biswas, J.1. The present hearing arises out of an application for review and/or for recalling of the order dated 22.12.2003 passed by Justice D.K. Seth and Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, High Court, Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, in connection with W.P.C.T. No. 214 of 2003 (Lt. Governor and Ors. v. Rajinder Singh), whereby and whereunder it was held by the aforesaid Division Bench that 'we are of the view that the respondent is not entitled to any relief as revealed from the facts disclosed. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 3ni September, 2003 passed in O.A. No. 90/A & N/2002 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit at Port Blair, is hereby set aside.' It was further directed by the aforesaid Division Bench that the petition before the learned Tribunal stands dismissed.2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the respondent/petitioner has c...
Tag this Judgment!Jitendra Nath Das Vs. Minati Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT1(HC),2004(4)CHN96,II(2004)DMC319
A. Barua, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.03.1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Barasat, in Miscellaneous Case No. 207 of 1988 arising out of an application filed by the opposite party under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Heard learned advocate of both sides.3. The matter pertains to an order of maintenance passed by the learned Court below whereby a maintenance allowance of Rs. 400/-per month was allowed in favour of the wife to be paid by the husband.4. This order is assailed by the husband in the instant criminal case.5. It has been submitted by the learned advocate for the husband, that is the revisional applicant, that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Magistrate suffer from manifest illegality because he did not take into account admissible documents which went in favour of the applicant, that is the husband in the case, who is a military personnel. It is further submitted that the...
Tag this Judgment!Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)190CTR(Cal)473,2005(182)ELT452(Cal),[2004]269ITR232(Cal)
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Facts relevant in the present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting under its own brand name, packet tea, conventional and instant coffee, oleoresins, meat products and marine products. On 7th March, 1994, Lipton India Ltd: was amalgamated with Brooke Bond India Ltd. and the amalgamated company changed its name to Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. which has since amalgamated with the Hindustan Lever Ltd.2. For the asst. yr. 1984-85, the assessee made a claim for deduction in respect of investment allowance of Rs. 91,84,078 under Section 32A of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of new machinery purchased and put to use during the previous year relevant to the said assessment year. Contention of the assessee was that it is not merely a blender of tea, it produces a new and distinct type of tea having a pre-determined quality in terms of test, liqu...
Tag this Judgment!Manoj Devi Vs. Municipal Commissioner, C.M.C. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT437(HC),2004(3)CHN566
D.K. Seth, J. 1. In exercise of power under Section 400 Sub-section (8) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, a portion of the building was demolished on the ground of undertaking unauthorized construction. Challenging this action, the plaintiff appellant had filed a suit against the Corporation contending that the Municipality be restrained from demolishing other portion of the building and had assailed the action taken under Section 400 Sub-Section (8) of the Act on the ground that it had breached the provisions contained in the sub-section itself. In the plaint, it has been averred that the property was purchased by the plaintiffs and his sister having moiety share. The learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit. The non-joinder of the sister in the suit is one of the grounds on which relief was denied. The second ground was that the date and particulars of the order passed under Section 400 Sub-section (8) was not available from the pleading amounting to vagueness. The o...
Tag this Judgment!Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2004
Reported in: [2004]137TAXMAN529(Cal)
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.Facts relevant in the present appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting under its own brand name, packet tea, conventional and instant coffee, oleoresins, meat products and marine products. On 7-3-1994, Lipton India Ltd. was amalgamated with Brooke Bond India Ltd. and the amalgamated company changed its name to Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. which has since amalgamated with the Hindustan Lever Ltd.2. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee made a claim for deduction in respect of investment allowance of Rs. 91,84,078 under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of new machinery purchased and put to use during the previous year relevant to the said assessment year. Contention of the assessee was that it is not merely a blender of tea, it produces a new and distinct type of tea having a pre determined quality in terms o...
Tag this Judgment!Jogen Chandra Das Vs. Sub-divisional Controller of Food and Supplies a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN160
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present case arises out of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it is directed against the order No. 19 dated 5th May, 2001 passed by the learned Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Cooch Bihar in Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 1999 arising out of Title Suit No. 17 of 1997 pending before the learned Court of Munsif, Dinhata, Cooch Bihar.2. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows :The petitioner, as plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The basis of his claim was that he applied for M. R. Dealership on 18th November, 1992 to the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies Department, Cooch Bihar and the said authority made proper enquiry through the officials of Dinhata in respect of all the applicants including the petitioner/plaintiff. On enquiry the officials of the said defendant No. 1 found that the plaintiff is the best and fittest candidate amongst all. On the basis of such enquir...
Tag this Judgment!Suman Ghosh Vs. Ramlal Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN428
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.1. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as the said Act) has repealed the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the landlord as being the defendant in a suit filed by the tenant for declaration of his tenancy right and injunction has raised an interesting question by contending that in view of the said Act, the present suit as above is not maintainable. In other words Civil Court's jurisdiction has been ousted by the said Act to entertain a civil suit far declaration of tenancy right in relation to a premises tenancy governed by the said Act.2. Mr. S.P. Roy Choudhury, the learned senior advocate appearing in support of the petition on behalf of the defendant landlord only upon reference to the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 39 and Section 44 of the said Act has contended that the present enactment has barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of matter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »