Kolkata Court March 2004 Judgments
Rajesh Sharma and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN604,2004(175)ELT82(Cal)
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The Court: The petitioner is engaged in the business of export and import and had been allotted an importer code number by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Guahati, Assam. The petitioner, it is contended in the writ petition, imported a consignment of decorative articles directly from a manufacturer at Italy. The said consignment of articles arrived at the port of Calcutta on February 24, 1999 and the bill of entry for home consumption was filed on behalf of the petitioners by the clearing agent on 4th March, 1999. The customs authorities by an order dated 4th March, 1999 on the said bill of entry not only directed for examination of the goods but also directed the goods to be detained without assigning any reason and the said goods are lying seized though no formal notice of such purported seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, hereunder referred to as the Act, was ever issued. The said order dated 4th March, 1999 was also recorded in the copy of ...
Tag this Judgment!Pravabati Devi (Since Deceased) Vs. Sambhu Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT471(HC),2004(4)CHN384
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. In Re. CAN 4663 of 2003Mr. Chatterjee had contended that when the judgment was delivered the learned Counsel engaged by the respondent did not appear. The respondent had cogent reason to support his contention that despite his best effort, he could not be represented through his Counsel. We find that there were sufficient grounds for recalling the order. According, the judgment and decree dated 16th of August, 2002, is hereby recalled and the appeal is restored to its original file and number.The application, being CAN No. 4663 of 2003 stands allowed.F.A. No. 117 of 1998After the above order is passed, both the learned Counsel for the parties were ready to argue the matter on merit. Accordingly, by consent of the parties the appeal is treated as on day's list and is taken up for hearing. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we dispose of the appeal in the following manner.Whether service of notice of eviction was proved? :2. Mr. Chatterjee had raise...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Bose and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Allahabad Bank and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN388
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The matter came up for hearing on 15.3.2004 when nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent bank. Directions were issued to the writ petitioner to intimate the learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondent bank that the matter shall be taken up on 17.3.2004. An affidavit of service had been filed by the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner wherefrom it appears that the learned Advocate for the respondent bank refused to accept the letter dated 15.3.2004 as he was no longer appearing for the respondent bank. Thereafter, on 15.3.2004 the respondent bank was intimated that the matter shall be heard on 17.3.2004 and if nobody appeared on behalf of the bank, the matter shall be taken up ex parte. In spite of such service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the bank. The affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the bank authorities was not available from the records.2. Appearing for the petitioners Mr. Moloy Ghosh submitted that the petitioner is seeking return of...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswati Shaw @ Menu Shaw and ors. Vs. Laxmi Moni Shaw @ Laxmi Rani a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN373
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.In Re: CAN No. 2856-57 of 20031. The appellant/plaintiff No. 2 died in between the passing of the decree and filing of the appeal. The appeal was filed by the plaintiff No. 1 excluding the heirs of the deceased plaintiff No. 2. Now these two applications have been filed one for addition of party of the heirs of the deceased plaintiff No. 2 as appellants and the other for correction of the cause title. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the respondents, points out that this application for addition of party cannot be allowed in view of the decision in State of West Bengal v. Manisha Maity and Ors., : AIR1965Cal459 , wherein it has been held that in such a case the Memorandum of Appeal cannot be presented without the leave of the Court. In fact, in this case, heirs of the deceased plaintiff No. 2 would be presenting an appeal claiming through or representing the interest of a person dying between the decree and the presentation of the appeal. The princip...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN578
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. Mr. Das concedes that his client took no leave under section 170 before the Tribunal. As such the insurer's appeal is not maintainable.2. But still there is one point. The respondents have filed an application for condonation of delay of more than 950 days and they seek an enhancement of the award.3. The award was for over Rs. 5 lac and 12% interest was awarded from the date of application.4. According to Mr. Das, the condonation application cannot even be made because the appeal by the insurer being not maintainable there cannot be a cross-appeal or a cross-objection but only a separate substantive appeal following the Rules and procedure in regard to the filing of an appeal.5. That the insurer's appeal is not maintainable in the present circumstances is settled, as at present, by Nicolletta Rohtagi's case which is reported at 2003(3) T. A. C. 293 (SC). But what does 'not maintainable' mean? Does it mean, as it Mr. Das contends, that although his client has filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Kanta Dubey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN462
Girish Chandra Gupta, J. 1. It appears from the report of the Enquiry Officer that he himself examined the witnesses tendered on behalf of the prosecution. As a matter of fact, there was no Presenting Officer. He, therefore, took upon himself the burden of proving the case on behalf of the prosecution. If the Enquiry Officer was to do this, I am afraid he cannot be expected to act impartially or even dispassionately.2. Whatever may be the decision on the evidence to be led by the parties, the employee concerned is entitled to get a fair hearing and a fair decision by an impartial person. He may be an officer of the same concern but nonetheless he should be disinterested with regard to the outcome of the enquiry. If it is suggested that he examined the witness is in a disinterested manner even then the trial cannot be said to have been fair because in that event justice was not done with the case of the employee. Conversely if he did not act disinterestedly then the maxim that 'no one c...
Tag this Judgment!Doly Ghosh Vs. Kumud Chandra Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT138(HC),2004(2)CHN585
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. A suit was filed in the Court of the learned Munsif in November, 1995 being O. C. Suit No. 169 of 1995 for the following reliefs :(a) Decree for cancelling the marriage held on 16.2.92 and setting aside the Hindu Marriage Registration certificate issued on 25.5.92.(b) Declaration that no marriage was held between the plaintiff and the defendant on 26.2.92 according to the Hindu Shastras or in any other way and the defendant is not husband of the plaintiff.(c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly taking the plaintiff to the house of the defendant as his wife and/or entering the house of the plaintiff as the plaintiffs husband and/or creating obstruction in nursing works or any other works of the plaintiff.(d) Decree for entire costs of the suit along with interest for the same'.1.1. Subsequently this suit was sought to be withdrawn which was allowed by the learned Munsif by an order dated 10th of July, 1998 with liberty to sue afresh in the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Indrani Wahi Vs. the Registrar, West Bengal Co-operative Societie ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT444(HC),2004(3)CHN483
P.K. Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner herein has filed this writ petition challenging the decisions of the respondents regarding non-approval of membership of the petitioner in the Sarobar-View Co-operative Housing Society Limited on the ground that the nomination made by the late father of the petitioner was not in terms of Section 79 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and Rule 127 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987.2. The parties herein have raised an important issue before this Court relating to the definition of 'family' under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 and more precisely whether the definition of 'family' shall also include married daughters under the said West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987.3. The factual aspects of this matter are briefly narrated hereinafter:4. The father of the petitioner Late B.R. Sengupta was a member of the Sarobar View Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Soc...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmirani Garai Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN348
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the applicability of the provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of the dues of the Co-operative Bank. The petitioner has questioned the certificate proceedings on the aforesaid ground that the provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act are not at all applicable for recovery of the dues of the petitioner. In view of the provisions of Section 132 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 any sum payable to the Co-operative Society in accordance with any decision shall be recoverable in the manner provided in the Second Schedule to the said Act and in the Second Schedule it has been specifically mentioned that the dues payable by a member or sureties or successor can be removed by the certificate officer as a public demand. The relevant provisions of Section 132 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act is quoted hereunder and the relevant portion of t...
Tag this Judgment!Baidyanath Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN430
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. 1. The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 1(5)92 on 10.2.93.2. Shortly put and shorn of details, the prosecution case is that on 3.10.1979 at about 15.00 hrs on receipt of a telephonic information from one Omkar Singh that one Shaktipada Chakraborty, aged about 25/26 years, of 20/5, Pottary Road, was stabbed on Pottary Road in front of Durga Maidan by accused Baidyanath Ghosh, Binoy Das, Samir Ojha, Adhir Mondal and others of that locally at about 13.30 hrs. and that the victim was removed to N. R. S. Hospital where he was declared dead. S. I. Bireswar Chakraborty recorded a G. D. being Entally P. S. G. D. E. No. 204 of the said date followed by his going to the P. O. to verify the authenticity of the telephonic message and recording the statement of informant Omkar Singh and registering Entally P. S. Case No. 376 dated 3. 10...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »