Kolkata Court May 2004 Judgments
Banarasi Paper and Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(170)ELT264(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the petitioner No. 1, a unit set up under EOU Scheme, for import of used and unserviceable automotive diesel engines, has prayed for directions upon the respondents to assess duty payable on 1500 pieces of re-constructed diesel engines and allow the clearance thereof for sale of those by the petitioners in the Domestic Tariff Area in terms of permission granted by the Development Commissioner.The case made out by the petitioners may be summarised thus :(a) The petitioners applied before the Development Commissioner for permission to set up its unit under EOU Scheme for import of used and unserviceable automotive diesel engines, free of Customs duty for reconstructing them in its unit and exporting those after for such reconstruction. The Development Commissioner after being satisfied about the process relating to reconstruction of the imported unserviceable diesel engines, issued the letter of permission ('LOP') as provided in Clause...
Tag this Judgment!Phalguni Sakha Chattapadhyay and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN14
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present case arises out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is directed against the judgment dated 5.7.1999, passed by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' in O.A, 392 of 1997.2. Grievances of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows :Petitioners appeared in the written test on 9.7.1995 and thereafter, in the interview held on 30.7.1995 for recruitment to the post of Trainee Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. While waiting in anxiety, it could be learnt that a few other candidates started their training. The petitioners approached the authority concerned and on 11.11.1996, came to know that the panel with their names had been cancelled. They made an application on 15.11.1996, alleging therein that in spite of being selected, the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, by an order dated 31.8.1996 (Memo No. 286-ACC/26/96 dated 31.8.1996) cancelled the same. But some persons w...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Institute of Metals Vs. Vinod Juthani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN1
1. This is an application to prefer an urgent appeal from an order dated the 4th of March, 2004, whereby the learned Judge disposed of a summons for summary judgment taken out by the plaintiff-appellant in an Order 37 suit.2. The suit was filed on 12 dishonoured cheques. The signature in the cheques are not disputed. Those were presented in sets of 5, 7 and 5 again. Dishonour was consistent. The amount claimed as the aggregate of the cheques is Rs. 15,17,472/-.3. The defendant has stated that it has paid off Rs. 5,65,000/- out of the said principal sum. So far as the facts are concerned, this part of the defendant's grievance is as excellent and good, as the defence to the claim in regard to the last 5 dishonoured cheques is devoid of any merit to any extent whatsoever.4. The impugned order is a short one and we have to set it out in full because a point of appealability has been taken. If that point succeeds, we cannot allow the appeal to be filed, whether on an urgent basis or otherw...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamali Sinha Vs. Pradip Kumar Sinha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN89
P.N. Sinha, J. 1. This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated 9.12.96 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court (E.G. Act.) in Criminal Motion No. 235/96 thereby allowing the criminal motion and setting aside the order dated 11.6.96 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Sealdah in G.R. Case No. 1906/88.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the wife of opposite party No. 1 and they are not in good terms arid there is dispute between the husband and the wife. A matrimonial suit being MAT Suit No. 338 of 1998 was filed by the petitioner and in order to take revenge or harass the petitioner, the husband-opposite party filed the complaint/ FIR a few days after the MAT suit and it was sent to O.C., Chitpur P.S. and on the basis of it Chitpur P.S. Case No, 394 dated 28.10.88 under Sections 448/ 323/ 324/ 504/ 506 of IPC was started against this petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Farid HossaIn Vs. National Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN267,[2005(106)FLR329],(2005)IILLJ532Cal
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The writ petitioner was a workman of Indian Airlines (hereinafter the authorities). That on 8.4.96 the petitioner went to Bangkok. After reaching Bangkok the petitioner was arrested by the local police on the charges of smuggling, sued in a Criminal Court, convicted, as he could not prefer appeal due to paucity of funds served the sentence and came back to Calcutta. While in Bangkok he was not conversant with the local language, he could not conduct his case properly. Being in difficulty he sought the assistance of the authorities which was refused. After returning the petitioner was allowed to join his duty. Thereafter, on 19.6.97 the petitioner was served with a show cause notice intimating as to why proposed punishment of dismissal should not be imposed on the petitioner since according to the authorities the petitioner committed a serious misconduct and was convicted in a Court of Law for a criminal offence amounting to moral turpitude. In reply to the said show ...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Rahim Molla and ors. Vs. Abbad Mudi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT555(HC)
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), 1973 has been preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated 22.09.03 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Barasat (Sadar), North 24-Parganas in Case No. M.P. 1387 (A)/2003 under sections 145/146 of the Code restraining both the parties i.e., the petitioners and the opposite parties from entering into the disputed land and directing the BL & LRO, Barasat-II to act as receiver under Section 146 of the Code for the said disputed land.2. The facts of the case as it emerges from the revisional application is that, the petitioners claim themselves to be bargadars under Kazi Mujibar Rahman, owner of the land paying regular share of produce to the land owner. The petitioners and some other bargadars being in apprehensions of breach of peace filed an application under Section 144(2) of the Code on 16.09.03 when the learned Sub Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Ava Rani Sengupta and ors. Vs. Laxmi Sengupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal84,2004(3)CHN585
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree of dismissal of their partition suit which was filed in 1963. The decree was passed in 1973.2. Partition was claimed of about five cottahs of land on the basis that the parties to the suit were the heirs of one Kulalakshmi Sen who had bought the property at a Court sale in or about 1934; the said Kulalakshmi Sen died thereafter in the late 1930's.3. Resistance to partition was put up by those defendants/respondents who are now the clients of Mr. Chowdhury. They were the sons of the eldest son of Kulalakshmi by her husband Biseswar. These resisting defendants put forward the claim that the property had been purchased benami and the real owner was Biseswar himself who had provided the purchase money, and who had gifted the property to them in 1967.4. The suit was tried on evidence. Biseswar was fortunately alive at that time and he gave evidence, although on commission taken at Allahabad; it is on record that the then l...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Bhowmick Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN558
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in S.T. Case No. 10 of August, 1993 on 26.5.1994.2. A thumbnail sketch of the prosecution case is that Smt. Malati Bhowmick was often subjected to torture, mentally and physically, in her in-law's house by the members of the family including mother-in-law but excluding the eldest brother-in-law and his wife, by way of assault and not offering food. On 20.9.1986 at about 2,45 a.m. she expired. In daytime on that day the mother-in-law assaulted her and it is apprehended that all the members of the house had assaulted and committed her murder during night and to avoid the blame her body was hung up in a tamarind tree in the cover of dark night. Hence, all the four accused persons viz. Smt. Haimabati Bhowmick, Kalipada Bhowmick, Shyamapada Bhowmick and Uttam Bhowmick were charged underSection...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Brich Muchi Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT388(HC),[2005(105)FLR706]
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him including the final order of dismissal passed in the said departmental proceeding. According to the petitioner, he is a permanent employee and works at Lakshmi Mata Colliery as an underground loader. The petitioner has been working under the Central Government undertaking, Coal India Ltd. and within its Unit at Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. The petitioner has been appointed from the year 1996 as an underground loader and since then petitioner is working diligently. After appointment the petitioner was issued an Identity Card. The petitioner has made this Identity Card as annexure P-1 to the writ petition. In the month of May 1999, the petitioner went to his native village getting the news of ailment of his grandmother. The petitioner took leave only for three days and left the colliery. But unfortunately his grandmother died. The petitioner along with his other family...
Tag this Judgment!Alok Biswas Vs. Amita Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN353
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is a tenant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated April 30, 1994 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 50 of 1992 reversing the judgment and decree dated May 5, 1992 passed by the learned Munsif, First Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 509 of 1979.2. The plaintiff, on December 5, 1979, instituted the present suit for eviction and for recovery of mesne profit. The plaint of the said suit was amended. According to the amended version of the plaint, the plaintiff reasonably required the suit premises for use and occupation by the plaintiff and by the members of her family. The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises comprising of two bed rooms, one kitchen-cum-dining room, bath room and privy in the ground floor at premises No. 19G Abinash Chandra Banerjee Lane, Baliaghata at a monthly rental of Rs. 150/- payable according to the English calendar. It was contended ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »