Kolkata Court July 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.
Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. (In Liquidation) and ors. Vs. Official Liquid ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: [2005(105)FLR752],(2005)ILLJ1165Cal
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. Two company applications being C.A. No. 136 of 1996 and C.A. No. 488 of 2002 arising out of a company petition being C.P. No. 229 of 1987 are the subject matter of consideration in an analogous hearing.2. The earlier company application was made by 37 alleged workmen individually making the Official Liquidator, one Champdany Industries Limited, and two trade unions being Shalimar Rope Works Staff and Workers Association and Shalimar Rope Workers Majdoor Union as party respondents therein. They have applied to get an appropriate order of setting aside and/or modification of certain clauses of Memorandum of Settlement and/or agreement dated May 7, 1993 alternatively setting aside and/or modification of the entire Memorandum of Settlement with further alternative to enter into a Memorandum of Settlement and/or agreement afresh. They have further applied for variation or modification of the orders dated September 4, 1992 and May 15, 1993 to make it in consonance wit...
Kesoram Industries Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: [2005]144TAXMAN192(Cal)
D.K. SETH, J.Facts.The appellant had submitted its return for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 which was assessed under section 143(3)/144B. Subsequently, in respect of those two assessments years, the assessee/appellant submitted a return under the amnesty scheme and offered the gratuity liability on the basis of actuarial certification for taxation. The assessments were completed under section 143(3)/231/147 and interest was charged under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This was subjected to certain proceedings and ultimately by an order dated 17-3-1989, the CIT (A) held that no interest can be charged either under section 139(8) or under section 215 in a reassessment made under section 147.While giving effect to this order dated 17-3-1989, instead of waiving interest since held not chargeable under section 139(8) and under section 215 by an order dated 1-5-1989, the assessing officer fully waived interest under section 139(8) for the year 1981-82 and partially for ...
Pranab Kumar Roy Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN661
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 6th June, 2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Andaman, at Port Blair, in CR Case No. 065 of 2003 and has further prayed for quashing of the complaint itself on the basis of which the aforesaid CR case has been registered.2. The following facts are not in dispute.3. The Assistant Wild Life Warden, Wild Life Division No. 1, Port Blair filed a petition under Section 50(4) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair, thereby indicating the petitioner for violation of the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 on the allegation that he was unlawfully carrying/transporting some of the Schedule I wild life articles.4. By the said application, the complainant prayed for keeping on record the seized articles and for taking the petitioner in the judicial custo...
In Re: Sudhangshu Sekhar Bera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN553
1. Accrual of a statutory right and scuttling of a vested right forms the subject-matter for disposal in this application underSection 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the said Code) which otherwise could have been disposed of with a single 'Yes' or a single 'No'.2. But, however, the basic question which has cropped up arrests the attention of the Court and has to be dealt with in its particular perspective. On an assessment of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perusing the case diary we are not inclined to accede to the prayer under Section 439 of the said Code made on behalf of the petitioners.3. However, Shri Ganguly for the petitioners has submitted that as already the petitioners are in custody for the last 96 days they are otherwise entitled to statutory bail. This has been very seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who has raised a question of some interests and as we have stated earlier the same...
Jagadis Bose National Science Talent Search Vs. Kolkata Metropolitan D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN580
Barin Ghosh, J.1. The petitioner, a Non-Governmental Organization, was allotted the subject plot of land by KMDA. The petitioner is such an organization, which is connected with enhancement of education. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 18,90,000/- as premium for allotment of the said land. This payment was made between 10th October, 1991 and 24th March, 1993. KMDA made this allotment at the request of the State Government who in turn had handed over this land to KMDA. On 1st January, 2002 the foundation stone for the proposed construction to be made on the land by the petitioner was laid by Professor Walter Kohn, the Nobel Laureate. At the time when the foundation stone had been laid, although the petitioner had paid the premium, but the conveyance had not been executed in its favour. It had then only an Indenture of License dated 26th May, 1998 executed by KMDA. The lease was ultimately executed in favour of the petitioner on 28th July, 2003 by KMDA. The petitioner then applied for a...
Sujit Kumar Banerjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN612
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this application 23 guardians for and on behalf of their respective wards have approached this Court for the relief of admission to Class-V without any admission test in the institution. Each and every ward was the student of Shibpur Hindu Girls' Primary School (hereinafter referred to as the primary school) and they have passed in Class IV examination held in the primary school. In this building according to the petitioners there are two streams, namely one is primary and another is secondary. The management of the secondary stream has refused to admit those students who have come out successfully in primary section as a matter of course. Instead they held the admission test to select the suitable candidates for admission to the secondary stream. The petitioners and each of them seemingly have got inspiration of judicial pronouncement rendered in scale of Debasish Kar Gupta v. State of West Bengal, reported in : AIR1999Cal300 , since affirmed by Appeal C...
Niranjan Mondal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN175
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The petitioner made an application for the grant of Freedom Fighter Pension (for short 'Pension') on 12.7.81 under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short 'scheme'). Along with the said application the petitioner enclosed the recommendations of two recognized freedom fighters. The Superintendent of Police, D.I.B., Midnapore on 22.8.89 forwarded a report regarding the role of the petitioner during freedom movement. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was recommended, for grant of pension after being forwarded by the S.A.C./D.L.A.C. on the basis of suffering from 1939 to 1946 supported by a report issued by S.P., D.I.B., Midnapore. Since the verification and entitlement to pension report was not received by the Central Government, the petitioner moved the High Court. The High Court by an order dated 4.1.96 directed the State to send a duplicate copy of the recommendation to the Central Government and 'the Central Government was directed to disp...
In Re: Krishna Murari Singh @ Krishan Murari Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN420
1. Feeling aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chandanagar in G.R. Case No. 13 of 2002 on 15.7.2002 whereby the interim bail granted by his Honour on 7.1.2002 was confirmed, this application has been taken out on behalf of the Complainant for setting aside the same.2. To substantiate the said prayer learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, who has placed before us the entire ordersheets from day one submitted that on the very first day the interim bail was granted by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate without perusing the Case Diary and subsequently although there was prayer for cancellation of the same at the behest of the Investigating Agency and notwithstanding the fact on the basis of the prayer of the latter Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added on 26.2.2002 confirmation of the interim bail was absolutely unjustified and requires to be set aside. He further submitted that such lenient view should not have been...
Ghatal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT291(HC),[2005(105)FLR176],(2005)IILLJ99Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. Both the writ petitions are directed to be analogously heard. A challenge has been thrown in respect of the notification being No. 565 dated 5.5.1980 whereunder Government of West Bengal in exercise of the powers conferred of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 specified all inland water transport establishments and employing twenty or more persons as a class of establishment to which the provisions of the said Act shall apply with effect from 31.5.1980. Such writ petition is numbered as W.I. 18361 (W) of 1999. But it appears to this Court that the other writ petition which has been directed to be analogously heard being C.O. 13114(W) of 1988 whereunder the petitioner itself wanted to be covered by the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. However, since a question of law belatedly in the affidavit-in-reply to WP No. 18361(W) of 1999 has been taken, the Court has to give answer to that effect....
Rama Goswami Vs. Lakshmi Kanta Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT451(HC),2005(4)CHN471
Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Code) has been preferred by the petitioner, the victim challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.05.01 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Sealdah in G.R. Case No. 1183 of 2000 (T.R. No. 3443 of 2000) arising out of Narkeldanga P.S. Case No. 115 dated 12.05.2000 under Sections 353/114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC).2. Before entering into the merits of the case it would be fruitful to mention in short the facts which resulted into the filing of the present revisional application. The prosecution case as it appears, in short, is that on 14.4.2004 S.I. M. Rahaman (P.W. 3) of Narkeldanga P.S. while on patrol duty received information of disturbance at premises No. 15, Narkeldanga North Road and receiving such information he arrived at spot. It was then about 10.30 P.M. and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »