Kolkata Court August 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.
Utpal Kumar Sarkar and anr. Vs. Deputy Superintending Archaeologist, A ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN36
Soumitra Pal, J.1. This is a writ petition filed challenging the order and/or notices dated 27.10.1999, 23.11.1999, 21.12.1999 and 28.2.2000, being Annexures P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10 respectively, the show cause notice dated 24.7.2000, being annexure P-ll, the order dated 6.11.2000 being Annexure P-17 to the writ petition whereby the respondents have, amongst others, directed to stop construction of the first floor of the hotel which has been allegedly illegally erected at the site since it falls within 100 meters from protected limits and further beyond it upto 200 meters near or adjoining protected Monuments as these are declared areas under the notification No. 1764 dated 16th June, 1992 (for short 'the notification') published in the Gazette of India dated 4th July, 1992.2. The facts as contended are that the land in question was purchased for starting a hotel in Murshidabad. Plans were submitted with the Murshidabad Municipal authorities (for short 'the Municipality'). The Municipal...
In Re: Md. Jahangir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN100,2005CriLJ237,I(2005)DMC591
D.P. Sengupta, J.1. In the present application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr. PC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.6.2004 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc. Ex. Case No. 27 of 2004. The petitioner is the husband and for non-payment of the amount of maintenance, a proceeding under Section 125(3) Cr. PC was initiated and the husband/ petitioner was brought under arrest as he failed to make the payment.2. It is submitted by the learned advocate of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for 42 days and accordingly, the petitioner made a prayer before the learned Magistrate for his release, which was turned down by the learned Magistrate, who fixed the next date on 28.7.2004 for production of the opposite party and payment of the amount.3. In disposing of the present application, I rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999(5) Supreme Court Cases 672, Shahada Khatoon & Ors. v. Amjad Ali & Ors. In the sa...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Arjun Kumar Izaddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN603
1. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner does not seriously oppose the application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the petitioner/appellant. We accordingly, allow the application for condonation of delay.2. While considering the application for stay we found that apart from grievances on meri of the matter, there is a substantial grievances on the part of the appellant/petitioner and that is non-service of the writ petition upon the appropriate respondent at or before the impugned order was passed. It appears that a notice of filing of the writ petition as well as the notice of moving the same was given to the learned Junior Advocate of the Government attached to this Court. It appears to be the contention of the respondents in the writ petition that no notice of moving the writ petition nor the filing of the same nor a copy thereof was served upon them. It is true that our High Court Rules do directed service of a copy of the writ peti...
Barun Kumar Das Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC132,2006ACJ799
Prabir Kumar Samanta and Sankar Prasad Mitra, JJ.1. This misc. appeal is at the instance of the claimant appellant against an award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The above appeal has been filed by challenging the quantum as awarded by the Tribunal. Learned Claims Tribunal by the aforesaid judgment and award has not granted any compensation for loss of earnings but has awarded a compensation for a total sum of Rs. 1,10,000 on account of medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 80,000 and Rs. 30,000 on account of pain and suffering and loss of expectation in life.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant met with an accident on 26.10.1998 at about 18.50 hours caused by the offending vehicle bearing registration No. WBS 3130. It appears from the deposition of the claimant himself that he was taken to R.G. Kar Medical Hospital soon after the accident. He was not advised by the said hospital to be sh...
A.K. Mallick Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)ESC2004
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. 1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2 of 2004 is the appellant in this appeal. He is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated April 2, 2004, whereby his writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge without granting him any substantial relief.2. The appellant was working as superintendent in the A&N; administration. By an order dated February 6, 2001, the administration created a post, of superintendent in the engineering wing of the Zila Parishad, Port Blair. Then by order dated February 5, 2003, the administration appointed the appellant in the post.3. While the appellant was working in the Zila Parishad, the Adhyaksh thereof issued the order dated December 30, 2003; by it the Adhyaksh released him with effect from December 30, 2003; and he was directed to report to the administration for further posting.4. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the writ petition, and in it an order for status quo was passed. The authority concerned took back t...
Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-2004
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Cal)407,[2005]278ITR319(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this application the petitioner has challenged an order dated December 4, 1989, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-I (respondent No. 1 herein), whereby and whereunder the petitioner's applications for waiver and/or reduction of interest under Rules 40(1) and 40(5) charged under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), for 23 months instead of 35 months has practically been rejected, granting for the period from March 1, 1986 to July 31, 1986. This application was made by the petitioner-assessee in relation to the assessment year 1984-85.2. It appears from the records that the first application was made under the provision of Rule 40(1) of the Income-tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'). Subsequently, another application was made on behalf of the petitioner under the provision of Rule 40, Sub-rule (5). Both these applications were heard out and disposed of by respond...
Evergreen Plywood Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Circular Leasing and Resour ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-2004
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas698(Cal),[2005]58SCL189(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This winding-up petition was filed by the petitioner against the company alleging non-payment of a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs lent and advanced by the petitioner to the company. The company confirmed the balance as would appear from the confirmation of account as on 1st April, 1998. The company also paid agreed interest from time to time. Last of such payment was made on 16th November, 1998. The statutory notice of demand was attempted to be served upon the registered office. However, the same came back with the endorsement 'Not known'.2. The winding-up petition was heard by Girish Chandra Gupta, J. when His Lordship by his judgment and order dated 16th May, 2002 admitted the winding-up petition and directed advertisement to be published once in the 'Statesman' and once in the 'Pratidin'. His Lordship granted liberty to the company to pay off the admitted sum together with costs of the application assessed on Rs. 10,000. Before His Lordship, the company took a plea t...
Raj Kumar Kapoor and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN65
Amitava Lala, J.1. A seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in in the matter of India Cement Ltd. etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu etc. held that royalty on mineral rights is a tax, and as such a cess on royalty, being a tax on royalty, is beyond the competence of the State Legislature because Section 9 of the Central Act covers the field and the State Legislature is denuded of its competence under Entry 23 of the List II of Schedule VII of Constitution. In any event, cess on royalty cannot be sustained under Entry 49 of List II as being a tax on land. Royalty on mineral rights is not a tax on land but a payment for the user of land. However, the levy of said cess was declared to be the ultra vires power of State Legislature only prospectively keeping in view of the fact that the amounts were collected by the State on the basis that the Supreme Court decision in : [1964]6SCR666 (In Re: H.R.S. Murthy's) was the correct position which has been overruled by this judgment. If such judgment is t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›