Kolkata Court March 2004 Judgments
Debasis Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC206,(2004)2CALLT625(HC),2004(3)CHN121
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. By this writ application, the petitioner, an applicant for grant of Stage Carriage Permit in Route Nos. 242 and 44/44A, has challenged the decision of Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata to hold lottery for the purpose of disposal of pending applications for grant of permit in those routes.2. There is no dispute that fleet strength of the routes in question was fixed in terms of notification under Section 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act'). According to the respondents there were only three vacancies but number of candidates was nine who were all eligible in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Under such circumstances, the Regional Transport Authority, Kolkata, decided that the number of eligible candidates being more than the number of existing vacancies, the fate of the applicants should be decided by lottery in the presence of a retired Judge.3. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with the i...
Tag this Judgment!Dipak Kumar Patra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC224,(2004)2CALLT600(HC)
B. Bhattacharyya, J. 1. By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the authority of the Deputy Secretary, State Transport Authority to impose a condition in the offer-letter which is in conflict with the actual resolution passed by the State Transport Authority while considering the application for grant of permit.2. The following facts are not in dispute:The petitioner applied to the State Transport Authority for grant of Stage Carriage Permit in the route of Kontai to Midnapore Town via Egra, Belda, IIT Kharagpur. While filing such application, in column No. 13, the petitioner made specific statement that he was in possession of the vehicle being No. WB-31/0924. 3. The State Transport Authority in its meeting decided to grant permit in favour of the petitioner. The 'actual resolution taken by the State Transport Authority vie Item No. 19 is quoted below:'Shri Dipak Kumar Patra, the applicant was represented by his learned advocate in the meeting and was heard. After hear...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Rekha Mukherjee Vs. Ashish Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal74
ORDERD. K. Seth, J. 1. Mr. Roychowdhury submits that the review application was preferred before the appeal against the decree (FAT No. 3011 of 2002) was presented and contends further that the appeal was preferred after the review was allowed. The learned Counsel for the respondents takes a preliminary objection that after the review was allowed, the appeal could not be maintained since on passing of the order allowing the review of the judgment to the extent of which review is allowed, become open for re-hearing. There would be conflict and confusion if parallel proceedings of review and appeal out of the same judgment are pursued. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) prescribes that if any person considers himself aggrieved of by a decree or order from which no appeal has been preferred, may apply for review of such decree. In this case, admittedly, review was prayed for and allowed before the appeal was filed which satisfy the requirement for review...
Tag this Judgment!Bonwarilal Goel Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN19
M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. Unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant before us. The instant appeal is directed against an order of learned Trial Judge dated April 11, 1983 passed in C.O. No. 5845(W) of 1977 whereby the writ petition was dismissed upholding the order passed by the learned President of the Tribunal which held that the impugned constructions had been erected not only in an unauthorized manner but by infringing several building rules.2. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion learned Trial Judge in the judgment under appeal has noticed that the appellant/petitioner had erected 6th and 7th stories without obtaining any sanction from the Corporation of Calcutta. He had also violated several other provisions of the Building Rules contained in the Schedule XVI of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 in respect of the other portions of the said premises. In the proceeding initiated under Section 414 of the Act, 1951 an order of demolition of the 6th and 7th stories had been ordered. It...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ram Chandra Tanti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN11,(2005)ILLJ162Cal
Altamas Kabir, J. 1. Challenging an order dated 8th September, 1997, issued by the Railway authorities introducing a subsidy system to replace the system of parcel handling by co-operative societies, the private respondents in W.P.C.T. No. 124 of 2001, moved the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 1158 of 1997, with a prayer for a direction upon the Railway authorities to regularise them as permanent railway servants. Two similar applications, being O.A. Nos. 1392 of 1997 and 1400 of 1997, were filed by several others. The facts of the three applications and the reliefs prayed for therein being similar, the said applications were taken up for hearing analogously and were disposed of by the learned Tribunal by its common judgment and order dated 24th August, 2000.2. While the said applications were pending for hearing, the Railway authorities issued another order dated 5th April, 1999, allowing parcel handling work at Bhagalpur Railwa...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlall Kanhaiyalall Vs. the Mysore Sugar Company Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT114(HC)
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 2.02.2001 whereby an application made by the defendant, the respondent in this appeal, inter alia for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was allowed.2. The appellant has filed a suit after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent for the following reliefs:-(c) Receiver.(d) Injunction.(e) Costs.(f) Further and/or other reliefs.3. The contention of the respondent is that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court.4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties some relevant facts which are required to be enumerated are as follows:5. On/or about July, 1977 the appellant filed the said suit.6. Between January and June, 1978 the respondent took out two applications inter alia for extension of time to file written statement and also for a direction upon the appellant to give better particulars of certain averments co...
Tag this Judgment!Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Phonographic Performance Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN595
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiff is a licensee to broadcast the FM Channel in All India Radio. The defendant is the copyright holder of various phonographic performance. The respondent is a copyright society registered under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act, 1957').2. In or about 1993 the plaintiff No. 1 was given the right to broadcast 'Times FM'. After the plaintiff No. 1 was allotted time slots for 'Times FM' the respondent Remanded broadcasting fee @ Rs. 1,500/- per time slot per hour for the music of which the respondent was holding copyright.3. The disputes arose between the parties which resulted in a suit filed before this Court being Suit No. 304 of 1993 (Phonograpic Components Pvt. Ltd. v. Midday Publication Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.). In the said suit a settlement was arrived at between the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant by which rate was agreed @ Rs. 160/- per needle hour. The other terms and conditions were also agreed upo...
Tag this Judgment!Padma Ganguly Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN157
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree which awarded a compensation Rs. 25,000/- to her for the loss of her son's life caused by the negligence of the respondent. There is no cross-appeal and the issue of negligence is no longer open. A live wire belonging to the respondents was touched by the appellant's son when he was playing football on the ground outside the local hospital, and he was electrocuted immediately.2. The mother came to the ground and found her son standing and holding the wire, by then dead. The Headmaster of the school deposed that he knew the deceased Pankaj Ganguly who was a student of Saktinagar High School and for whose death a condolence meeting was held the day after his death.3. The decree is challenged as having awarded too low an amount of compensation.4. The following cases were relied upon by the appellant before us :1. 1998 ACJ 918, Hanuman Sant and Ors. v. Madan Lal and Ors.2. 1998 ACJ 450, Managing Director, Dheeran Chinnama...
Tag this Judgment!Kejriwal Enterprises Vs. General Manager, Ordnance Factory and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Cal225,2005(1)CHN487
ORDERP.K. Samanta, J.1. The plaintiff/petitioner being a registered partnership firm has filed the Commercial Suit No. 219 of 1993 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 88,599.90 ps. along with the interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till full realization from the defendant/opposite parties namely the Ordnance Factory, Khanari, Jabbalpur and other authorities of the Central Government. Though the plaintiff/petitioner has filed the above suit as being the registered partnership firm but the Firm, Registration Certificate in respect thereof was not filed while the plaint was presented. At the hearing of the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner made an application to adduce evidence as to the registration of its partnership business by recalling P.W. 1. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order.2. The learned trial Court is of the view that the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended which has come into ...
Tag this Judgment!Soumitra Banerjee and ors. Vs. State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN545
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. All these writ applications were taken up together as common questions of law are involved in all these matters.2. By these applications, the petitioners have challenged the West Bengal Additional Tax and One-time Tax on Motor Vehicles Tax (Amendment) Act, 2003 (West Bengal Act XIV of 2003), the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax (Amendment) Act, 2003 (West Bengal Act XIX of 2003) and the West Bengal Additional Tax and One-time Tax on Motor Vehicles (Second Amendment) Act, 2003 (West Bengal Act XX of 2003).3. To appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to state a brief history of promulgation of the statute relating to tax on Motor Vehicles in West Bengal.4. Prior to independence, the Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1932 (Bengal Act I of 1932) was the taxing statute by virtue of which taxes were imposed upon motor vehicles. After the coming into operation of our Constitution, the West Bengal State Legislature in 1979 enacted West Bengal Mo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »