Kolkata Court July 2004 Judgments
Uttam Das and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT51(HC)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 20th July 2004 in C.O. 5045 (W) of 1993. The appellants are claiming, they are occupiers of 0.23 acres of land in Plot No. 6004 (part) and had been residing there since 1971 after constructing their hutments. On the pretext of acquiring the said land and construction of a Water Treatment Plant, the appellants were sought to be evicted without initiating any legal proceedings. The petitioners moved a writ petition, which was disposed of by directing the authorities to evict the appellants only in accordance with law, which is annexure 'B' to the writ petition. This order was passed on 4th December 1992. Thereafter notice under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction and Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 was initiated. The notice thereunder was issued on 3rd February 1993. The schedule of land mentioned therein were Dags Nos. 5939, 5940; 6002 (part) and 6004 (part). On 19th February 1993 the writ petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Copper Limited Vs. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal133,2006(1)ARBLR414(Cal),2005(1)CHN448
1. This is an appeal from an order passed on the 10th March, 2004 by the Arbitration Court whereby His Lordship directed the appellant before us who was the respondent before His Lordship to make the payment under what His Lordship held to be a foreign award, within three weeks from the date of the order. On failure of such payment necessary orders would be passed by His Lordship for execution of the decree.2. The decree there is none, i.e., in the sense that there is no decree passed by any Court of Law. The execution was to be of an award passed by one Mr. Cooke, Q.B. sitting in England and the said award is dated 29th September, 2001.3. The said clause is set out below:-'14. Arbitration.- All disputes or differences whatsoever arising between the parties out of, or relating to, the construction, meaning and operation or effect of the contract or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in India through the arbitration panel of the Indian Council of Arbitration in accordanc...
Tag this Judgment!Abani Mohan Biswas and 11 ors. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN195
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) has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1246/76 arising out of Karimpur P.S. Case No. 9 dated 4.7.1976 under Sections 147/447/379/324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Krishnagar in Nadia.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the G.R. Case No. 1246 of 1976 arose out of Karimpur P.S. Case No. 9 dated 4.7.1976 under Sections 147/447/379/324 of the IPC and after completing investigation the police submitted chargesheet in the said case on 10.2.1977. Copies of relevant papers were served to the accused persons on 23.3.1977. For the last 27 years the trial has not been completed. It amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as the said Article guarantees funda...
Tag this Judgment!iCi and Associated Companies Employees' Union and Anr. Vs. State of We ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN129
Amitava Lala, J.1. In this writ petition, the Order No. 26 dated 14th June, 2004 passed by the First Industrict(sic) Tribunal is under challenge. Such order is of an interlocutory application whereunder the petitioners herein made a prayer for the purpose of getting adjudication about the abuse of process till such time. A Corrigendum is issued by the appropriate Government. The Corrigendum was necessitated for the purpose of rectification of earlier notification by incorporating the word 'workmen' instead and place of the word 'workman', although it appears that the Union is espousing the cause. The Tribunal held that on the basis of anticipation of modification of the order of reference by the Government or for the purpose of rectification on the presumption that it will be amended, the Tribunal cannot wait indefinitely. Therefore, such application was dismissed by fixing a date for hearing on merit. According to me, generally the singular includes the plural. Therefore, pertinent qu...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Hooghly District Central Co-operativ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN483
D.K. Seth, J.1. The learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that a nominal member is exempted from payment of stamp-duty by virtue of the circular issued by the State Government, which is at page 91 of the Paper Book.2. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that by reason of Section 60 Sub-section (2), exemption is permissible only in respect of the members of the co-operative society on instruments executed by such member in favour of the co-operative society and a nominal member is not a member within the definition of Section 2(28) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and he cannot enjoy any right or privilege by reason of Section 69(3), particularly, in view of the by-laws of the society which denies the privilege to a nominal member. Mr. Bhattacharya also relied on the Memo No. 4755 dated 29th of December, 1999, Memo No. 1485 dated 28th of February, 2000 and Memo No. 3893 dated 13th of October, 2000 wherefrom he points out tha...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.A.P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)193CTR(Cal)74,[2004]270ITR248(Cal)
ORDER OF TRIBUNALIn favour of assessee on revenue's appealCatch Note:The assessee was carrying on the business of undertaking contracts in respect of which mobilisation fees was being received from time to time. The assessee used to maintain its accounts on basis of completion of contracts method but from the assessment year 1988-89, it changed the method of accounting and started showing receipt of mobilisation fee on the basis of the pro rata performance of the contract in that particular assessment year and offered it to tax accordingly. In respect of the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90, the CIT (A) held that the amount would become taxable on the completion of the contract and thus postponed the taxability till the completion of the contract. The Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal for these years. However, for assessment year 1990-91 it sustained order of CIT (A). Held : As the Tribunal's order was not in conformity with its earlier year's order therefore, same was modified to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Vs. Sudhir Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN54,2004(95)ECC641,2004(172)ELT26(Cal)
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. A point that has been urged by Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay in this case is that whether Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be attracted in respect of non-notified goods shifting the initial burden on the person claiming to be the owner or from whom the goods were seized to undertake establishing a negative proof that the goods were not smuggled.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, opposes the said contention on the ground that the application of Section 123 is limited to the goods notified and those mentioned in Sub-section (2). He relied on the decision in Radha Kishan Bhatia v. Union of India and Ors., : 1965CriLJ154 and Gian Chand and Ors. v. State of Punjab. 1983 ELT 1365 (SC) to support his contention.3. The context of Section 123 would be the answer to the question. We need not search elsewhere. We may quote Section 123 beneficially hereafter :'123. Burden of proof in certain cases--(1) Where any goods to which this section applies are seized ...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Banga Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT1(HC),2005(1)CHN92
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 1301 of 2002 and all orders passed therein, including orders dated 23.5.2003 and 6.6.2003 pending before the learned SDJM, Burdwan arising out of Burdwan (Sadar), P.S. Case No. 570 of 2002 dated 11.11.2002 in which charge sheet under Sections 406, 467, 468, 420/120B was filed against the present petitioner being Chairman including a host of others connected with Hindustan Liver Ltd.2. The O.P. No. 2 lodged a complaint on 7.10.2002 before the learned SDJM, Burdwan against the present petitioner including others seeking direction from the Court to refer the matter to the concerned P.S. under Section 156 for registering the case and on receipt of the said complaint, Burdwan (Sadar) P.S. registered the case No. 570 of 2002 dated 11.11.2002 under Sections 406, 467, 468, 420/120B of Indian Penal Code treating t...
Tag this Judgment!iCi and Associated Companies Employees' Union and Anr. Vs. State of We ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN251
Amitava Lala, J.1. A challenge has been thrown by the petitioners i.e. Employees' Union as regards the order passed by the First Industrial Tribunal on 29th June, 2004, allowing the management to file a document proposed to be relied upon. The contention of the writ petitioners is that such prayer was rejected on 1st December, 2003 and no challenge had been thrown in respect of such order. According to the petitioners, a Tribunal cannot be behaved like a post box. It has to apply its own mind before allowing any document to be produced in course of the proceeding for the purpose of evaluating the evidentiary value of the same. In this case, when the production of such document once refused, the same cannot be allowed afresh by the Tribunal. According to me, there are many ways of producing documents in the Court or in the Tribunal. Firstly, there should be formal disclosure of documents by both the parties and inspection in connection thereto. Secondly, during the pendency of the proce...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Blending Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN547,[2005(107)FLR940],(2005)IIILLJ425Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. The present writ petitioner is a company by the pen of the Senior Plant Manager of the same. He has been described as the Constituted Attorney of the same. In the said writ petition, the company has thrown a challenge in respect of a notification dated 13th July, 1998 issued by the Director General, Labour Welfare, Government of India under which employment in the petitioner company of the contract labour in the works or jobs of loading, unloading and carrying empty and filled drums and raw materials was prohibited by applying Section 10(1) under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. According to the petitioner company, a Committee was formed for the purpose of recommendation to the appropriate Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 5 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, in terms of reference hereunder :'To study the working of contract labour system is loading and unloading, carrying empty drums, and raw m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »