Kolkata Court March 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Abhishek Banerjee Vs. University of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT87(HC),2005(2)CHN254
Indira Banerjee, J.1. This writ application is directed against the action of the respondent University of Calcutta in declaring the petitioner as 'failed' in the Master of Science Part II examination in Computer and Information Science, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner obtained over 240 out of 600, that is, over 40% in the aggregate in the theoretical papers and over 50 per cent in each of the practical papers.2. The facts giving rise to the writ application are briefly as follows: The petitioner claims to have passed the Madhyamik examination conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in the year 1996 securing 75% marks.3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner thereafter passed the Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1998 securing 73.6% marks in the Science subjects.4. It has been stated that the petitioner appeared for the B.Sc. Part I examination in which he secured 66% marks. In the B.Sc. Part II examination the petitioner claims to have secur...
Bhakti Prasad Das and ors. Vs. Namita Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN484
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging an order dated 30.4.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 8 of 2000, whereby the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was rejected.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement sometime in the year 2000.3. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of his pleadings in the plaint. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs wanted to bring on record certain subsequent events by which the requirement of the plaintiffs has been increased during the pendency of the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the requirement of the plaintiffs has been increased as one of the plaintiffs, namely, plaintiff No. 4, who was in Kalyani has since been transferred to Calcutta...
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Jardine ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN568,(2005)ILLJ16Cal
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The principal issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the learned Judge was right in quashing the impugned notification which had extended the benefit of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as 'the said Act, 1948' to the class of employees getting salaries upto Rs. 6,500/- per month.2. Challenging the said notification series of writ petitions were filed mostly by the employees union both in original side and the appellate side of this Court.3. All the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated June 30, 2000 delivered by Mr. Samaresh Banerjea, J. (as His Lordship then was).4. Although the writ petitions involved diverse questions the principal challenge in the said writ petitions was the impugned notification dated December 23, 1996 by which Rule 50 of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 was amended by raising the salary limit from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,500/-. In such view of the mat...
Manik Lal Sharma Vs. Usha Beltron Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT271(HC)
S.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a decision granting a decree on admission under Chapter XIII-A in this suit on August 5, 2003. The first preliminary objection that was taken with regard to the validity of the decree is based on. Rule 3 proviso of Chapter XIII-A of the Original Side Rules (OS Rules). Mr. Pal submits that unless the Master's Summons under Rule 4 of Chapter XIII-A is taken out within 10 days from the date of receipt of notice of appearance where a written statement has been filed, the application under Chapter XIII-A shall not be maintainable or permissible. According to him, the writ of summons was served on May 22, 2003 and the defendant-appellant had entered appearance and served notice on May 25, 2003 whereas Master's Summons was taken out on June 11, 2003 and the written statement was filed on July 28, 2003.2. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee ably assisted by Mr. Banerjee points out that where a written statement is filed after the Master's Summons is taken out the fi...
Meghana Commercial Co Ltd. Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)88TTJ(Kol.)900
The assessee is in appeal against the order dated 5-12-2002, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of an order made under section 154 of the Act by the assessing officer rectifying the assessment order completed under section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 1994-96.The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal, out of which the main/substantial grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are with regard to the maintainability of the order made under section 154 by the assessing officer and further order of enhancement by the Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the appeal arising out of the assessing officer's order under section 154 of the Act.The material facts related to the issue are that the original assessment was completed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessing officer had passed an order under section 154 on 30-6-2000, assessing the long-term capital gain at Rs. 29,65,646 as against long-term capital gain assess...
Dwarika Prasad Bajpai Vs. Kedar Prasad Bajpai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Cal204,2004(2)CHN488
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. 1. This an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ('the said application' in short) against order No. 116 dated July 30, 2002 passed by the learned Judge, Thirteen Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 973 of 1990.2. The plaintiff/petitioner instituted the said suit against the opposite parties, inter alia, for declaration that the conveyance of the suit property by the defendant No. 2 to the defendant No. 1 was invalid, void and/or voidable and not binding upon the plaintiff. It was contended to the plaint that the opposite party No. 2 entered into an agreement for sale of the disputed property with the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 on March 9, 1978, inter alia, agreeing to convey the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 jointly. The defendant No. 2 accepted Rs. 5,001/- towards the earnest money at the time of execution of the said agreement. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 instituted ...
Sri Chittaranjan Pal Vs. Sri Bankim Chandra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT299(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants being the appellants herein challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2000 and 30.9.2000 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court at Ranaghat, Nadia, in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.05.1997 and 03.06.1997 respectively by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Ranaghat, Nadia in T.S. No. 37 of 1996 (originally T.S. No. 213 of 1991).2. The case as has been made out by the plaintiff's Kamala Bala Biswas in the plaint is inter alia as follows:The defendant Chittaranjan Pal is a tenant under the plaintiff Kamala Biswas in pursuance of a Written Agreement at a monthly rental of Rs. 20/- payable according to Bengali calendar by the first of the month following the month for which rent relates. The defendant is a defaulter since Kartick 1393 B.S. The plaintiff resides in holding No. 34 which consists of two bed rooms. There is no kitchen. A porti...
Krishna Kr. Pathak (Huf) Vs. Ito
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)90TTJ(Kol.)940
The assessee has filed this appeal for the asst. yr. 1993-94 against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dt. 29-10-2002, by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the penalty under section 271D of Rs. 10,000 for violation of section 269SS of the IT Act.The assessing officer stated that the assessee accepted loan of Rs. 10,000 by way of cash from Sri Krishna Kr. Pathak during the financial year 1992-93 relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The assessing officer stated that the aggregate amount of unpaid loan exceeded Rs. 20,000 and as such the assessee violated the provision of section 269SS of the Act. The assessing officer levied the penalty under section 271D of the Act of Rs. 10,000 which is 100 per cent of the loan taken in cash in violation of section 269SS of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority.The assessee contended that Sri Krishna Kr. Pathak is the Karta of the assessee (HUF) and he hand...
Dilip Kumar Karmakar Vs. Biju Rani Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT196(HC),II(2004)DMC522
Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th May, 1988 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Burdwan in the Matrimonial Suit No. 59/85//15/87. By the judgment impugned the learned Judge dismissed the suit in which the husband/petitioner prayed for a decree of divorce against his wife/opposite party, the respondent here on the ground of cruelty.2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner/husband is that the parties to the suit was married according to Hindu rites on 11.5.84 at village Prayergram, the father's place of the respondent. After the marriage the respondent came to the house of the petitioner at Moukhira under Police Station Ausgram and began to live as husband and wife. Within a very short period (as per the allegation of the petitioner a week after the marriage), the respondent expressed to the petitioner that she was not willing to reside at. Moukhira and began to press her husband to live at Illambazar. The petitioner did no...
Swapan Sarkar Vs. Santanu Bhowmik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT329(HC),2004(4)CHN278
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 5th August, 2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter called the CJM), Jalpaiguri rejecting thereby prayer of the petitioner to recall or cancel the W/A issued against the petitioner and also for quashing the criminal proceeding being case No. C.R. 531 of 2001.2. The facts of the case as it appears from the averments of the application, is that, the petitioner is now posted as Sub-Divisional Police Officer (hereinafter called the SDPO), Tehatta in the District of Nadia. The opposite party lodged a complaint case being C.R. No. 531 of 2001 against him in the Court of the learned CJM, Jalpaiguri for alleged offence under sections 342/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC) on 21.12.01. After taking cognizance the learned CJM transferred the case to the Court of learned SDJM, Jalpaiguri for disposal and the learned SDJM by order dated 18.3.02 dismissed the complai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »