Kolkata Court January 2005 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.
State of West Bengal Vs. Kabita Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN366
Altamas Kabir, A.C.J. 1. The writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 filed a writ application, being W.P. No. 980 of 2003, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents to mutate her name in respect of plot No. 76, Block 'DL' in Sector-II, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata, upon quashing the letters dated 15th October, 2001 and 9th July, 2002, being Annexures P-12 and P-14 to the writ petition.2. The case as made out in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner is a beneficiary of the Will of one Satya Narayan Khowala, along with her two sisters-in-law, in respect of the aforesaid plot. According to the writ petitioner, by a letter dated 10th December, 1986, the State Government granted and demised the aforesaid plot measuring 4.20 cottahs in favour of Satya Narayan Khowala, said to be the uncle of the writ petitioner, and his two sons, Khem Chand Khowala and Mahesh Kumar Khowala, each having a 1/3rd undivided interest in the demised land. According to the writ petitioner, by a family arra...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Tapas Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT256(HC)
Altamas Kabir, A.C.J.1. The respondent Nos. 1 to 103 are the company paid staff in the office of the Official Liquidator, High Court at Calcutta. The service conditions of the said respondents are such that they are working in the said office without any service benefits as admissible to Central Government employees in similarly situated conditions. Sometime in November, 1999 the said respondents were served with notices to appear for an interview for being absorbed in the office of the Official Liquidator, High Court at Calcutta in group 'C' posts consequent upon a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.8.99. It is the case of the said respondents that on coming to learn of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court they also came to learn that similarly situated staff in the office of the Court Liquidator of this Court and that of the Delhi High Court and Kerala High Court had prayed for regularisation of their services and had also prayed to be absorbed with ...
Gouranga Sarkar Vs. Biswajit Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN460
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.7.01 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5'' Court, Alipore in Case No. C-2636/ 97 (T.R. No. 797/97) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short N.I. Act), 1881 and acquitting the accused respondent under Section 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Code), 1973.2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of complaint lodged by the appellant complainant against the accused respondent in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM) at Alipore alleging therein that he is the proprietor of Sarkar & Co. having its shop at 76/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road within P.S. Thakurpukur dealing in hardware and building materials. The accused respondent took materials from his shop on credit and on account of payment of price of such materials, the accused issued three A/c payee cheques bearing Nos. 493627 dated 30.10.97, 493628 dated 30.10.97 ...
Murlidhar Kanoi Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-2005
Reported in: (2005)93ITD615(Kol.)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the ld. CIT(A)'s order dated 25.2.2004 for the ssessment year 1999-2000. "(i) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing Agricultural Income as exempt Under Section 10(1) when he himself admitted that agricultural operation was carried out and the income represent share of profit from such agricultural income. (ii) For that the CIT(A) has also erred in directing to treat the agricultural income as income from other sources. (iii) For that the appellant begs leave to add, alter or amend any of grounds at the time of hearing.3. In the return of income, the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs. 1,17,368/-and claimed the same as exempted under section 10(1) of the Act. It was stated by the assessee before the A.O. that entire agricultural income amounting to Rs. 1,17,3687- was received as share profit from Balaji Farm House, allegedly a partnership firm, in which the assessee claimed to be a pa...
Manick Mohan Saha and ors. Vs. Md. Masudal Haque and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT357(HC),2005(1)CHN512
Narayan Chandra Sil, J.1. This is to consider a suit for specific performance of contract filed before the learned Assistant District Judge, Sealdah and registered as Title Suit No. 78 of 1990. Thereafter the suit was transferred to the High Court and registered as E.O.S. No. 2 of 1996.2. The plaintiff case in short is that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and their mother Mst. Hoorunessa Bibi entered into an agreement with the plaintiff No. 1 on 11th August, 1980 for sale of a three-storied brick built building together with land measuring 4 cottahs, 6 chittacks and 13 sq. ft. appertaining to premises No. 3, Dr. Sundari Mohan Avenue, Calcutta-16 (formerly known as plot No. 22, of surplus land of Calcutta Improvement Trust Scheme, Calcutta) which is in fact the suit property. The price agreed to be paid was Rs. 1,80,000/- and the plaintiff No. 1 paid a sum of Rs.12,000/- as advance and in part payment of the consideration money.3. One Mr. Azisul Haque also known as Hazi Md. Azizul Haque (here...
Titan Engg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(189)ELT416(Cal)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the refund of Rs. 65,892/- to which they became entitled in view of the order passed by the Tribunal was not made by the respondents with interest.2. The facts of the case are these. In course of business the first petitioner supplied certain goods to a Kashmir Oxygen Limited having its place of work in Srinagar. According to the first petitioner, the equipment supplied was a heat exchanger, while the respondents considered the equipment to be a refrigeration unit. Excise duty payable by the first petitioner was paid treating the equipment as heat exchanger. The respondents thought that higher amount of excise duty was payable for the equipment as it was a refrigeration unit.3. As a result the Collector of Central Excise initiated a proceeding and passed order dated June 7,1984 asking the first petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs. 65,892/- towards excise duty payable on account of sale of the equipment in ...
Universal Petro Chemicals Limited Vs. Bp P.L.C. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT405(HC),2005(2)CHN239
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. Universal Petro Chemicals Limited (Universal in short) institutes this suit, inter alia, praying for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from marketing in India any lubricant and in particular finished automotive and industrial lubricant under the brand name Aral or by using the design of Aral; perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 3 from allowing or permitting anybody other than the plaintiff to market finished automotive and industrial lubricant in India under the trademark Aral or design of Aral; declaration that collaboration agreement dated November 1, 1994 read with supplementary agreements dated January 3, 1995 and December 27, 2002 and the agreement upon trademark and design are operating, subsisting and binding upon the defendants till December 31, 2009; declaration that the letter of termination dated April 14, 2004 is void and cancelled and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No. 3 ...
Gour Hari Ghosh Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN248
Soumitra Sen, J.1. Let affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. In spite of service no one appears to contest this revisional application, when the matter is called on.2. In this revisional application the petitioner has challenged Order No. 12 dated September 7, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Diamond Harbour in Title Suit No. 241 of 2002, whereby the learned Trial Judge has rejected the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code.3. The opposite party/Bank has filed a suit under Order 35 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code being Title Suit No. 241 of 2002, which is interpleader suit. It is the contention of the opposite party/bank that as one of the landlords was claiming sole ownership of the suit property, the bank's right as a tenant was required to be determined.4. It is an admitted position that the Bank had granted loan for construction of the suit premises by creating mor...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ499
P.K. Samanta and Maharaj Sinha, JJ.1.In presence of the learned advocate for the parties, this miscellaneous appeal along with the above application is taken up for disposal.2. The miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.6.2004 passed in the M.A.C. No. 47 of 2003 (new) & 32 of 2003 (old) by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Burdwan at Asansol. This appeal is by appellant insurance company. The claimants-respondents filed the above claim case on the death of their son in a motor accident occurred on 28.5.2002 while he was travelling in a motor cycle.3. The learned Claims Tribunal after contested hearing of the above claim case came to a finding that the said victim died because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The victim being a non-earning member of the family, his earning was taken as a notional income of Rs. 15,000 per annum and the age of the victim on the date of the accident was found to be 25 years. The learned Claims Tribuna...
Motiur Rahman Mollah Vs. Sk. Ashar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal119,(2005)2CALLT39(HC),2005(1)CHN478
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. The plaintiff institutes this suit for recovery of damages for defamation, which has been tentatively assessed at Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees fifty lakh) only, against the defendants named in this suit.2. The summons of this suit has been served on the defendant No. 7 on March 11, 2004.3. This suit has been instituted on or about January 29, 2004. Therefore, the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002, is applicable in this case.4. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 runs as under:'1. Written Statement.-The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in wr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »