Kolkata Court November 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.
Loucal Promoter Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Gautam Dudhoria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal117,2006(2)CHN138
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for declarations and permanent injunction and is directed against order dated 31st March, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 264 of 2004 thereby dismissing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the present appellants and vacating the interim order earlier granted therein.2. The present appellants filed the aforesaid suit for declarations, inter alia, that the defendants, their men, agents and servants had no right or authority to break and open the boundary wall which runs from the east to the west on the southern side of the premises Nos. 8/1 and 8/1/1 and northern side of the premises Nos. 8/1/2 and 8/1/3, Loudon Street, Calcutta - 700017 and that the private passage of premises Nos. 8/1/1 and 8/1/2 of Loudon Street is for the exclusive use of the plaintiffs and the occupiers of...
State Vs. Alexius Tirkey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN508
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This appeal preferred by the State is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 28th July, 2005 in Sessions Case No. 24 of 2003 thereby acquitting the respondent/ accused from the charges under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the order of acquittal the State has moved this Court in this appeal.2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that Smt, Jaseenta Minj (P.W. 5) was living with her elder sister Smt. Josani Minj and brother-in-law Shri Lachu Tigga at Louki Nallah No. 3. P.W. 5 was married with one Mr. John and thereafter she had second marriage with one Robert Lakra. When Robert Lakra left her at Diglipur, she came to her elder sister's house and was staying at Louki Nallah. Her elder sister's daughter Kumari Ajita Tigga (P.W. 6) and one Asan Sai (deceased) were also staying at Louki Nallah for the last 5/6 years from the date of incident...
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Central Gov ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT1(HC),2006(4)CHN146,[2006(109)FLR496],(2006)IILLJ628Cal
Soumitra Pal, J.1. Instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th March, 2002 passed by a learned singe Judge in W.P. No. 948 of 2000 affirming the award dated 20th December, 1999 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in Tribunal Reference Case No. 14/1991.2. The facts as stated by the appellant are that the respondent No.3 Chhabi Ghosh ('respondent' for short) was Initially appointed and, thereafter, confirmed as a clerical staff on 26th July, 1969 by the then Mercantile Bank Ltd. now known as the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Pursuant to an agreement dated 16th June, 1978 entered into by the Mercantile Bank Ltd. and the said respondent. The said respondent was promoted as staff officer, Grade-I (Junior). The two grades of staff officers that is Grade-I (Junior) and Grade -II (Senior) were merged with effect from 1st of July, 1984, thereby bestowing the powers and duties exercised by Grade II staff officers on Grade-I staff officer...
Suniti Bala Paul Alias Bina Pani Paul Vs. Arunangshu Bhusan Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-22-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT573(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This is an application taken out by one Arunangshu Bhusan Paul for revocation of grant of probate by this Hon'ble Court dated 2nd August, 1993. This application has been taken out sometimes in the month of September, 2004. So, apparently this application is taken out after nearly eleven years. Ordinarily this kind of application should be dismissed on the ground of delay. Indeed this application has to be dismissed for the following facts and reasons as stated hereinafter:2. The deceased testatrix is the mother of the applicant. By the will another brother of the applicant was appointed executor. He obtained probate of the Will. From the records I find that probate was granted without any contest, as consent was endorsed on the application of grant of probate.3. It is the case of the petitioner that no citation either special or general was issued either, upon any of the heirs and/or legal representatives. It is pertinent to record that other heirs and legal...
Andaman Chamber of Commerce and Industry Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN290
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a question as to whether the Port Management Board, being a service provider under the Finance Act, 1993 (as amended in 2003), is entitled to recover service tax from the members of the writ petitioner appellant for the service rendered to them during the period from July 01, 2003 to May 20, 2004 retrospectively. 2. The writ petitioner is an association of business people/organization working for gain within the islands. For the business purpose, they were provided services by the Port Management Board during the relevant period for which service tax was admittedly payable by them. The port authority, however, did not have registration at that point of time under the Finance Act. They got themselves registered by the competent authority on May 21, 2004. 3. After getting the registration, the port authority issued notices to various organization and/or business people who were rendered services by the port authorities during the peri...
India Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Newsprint Trading and Sales Corpora ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal102
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Both the aforesaid applications were heard together as the points involved in both the matters are identical. Both these two applications owe their origin to the judgment and order dated 17th March, 2004. This order was passed on settlement being arrived at by and between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the other. In view of the settlement and on the basis of suggestion given to the Court by both the parties this order was passed. In terms of this order the defendant No. 3 being the applicant of G. A. No. 3035 of 2004 was directed to transfer the property atJagmohan Village, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the said property) to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement dated 7th September, 2000 read with the agreement dated 12th September, 2002 for consideration of Rs. 21.10 crores. The plaintiff is directed to make ready at its own costs the stamp paper and complete all legal formalities require...
Jaharlal Saha and ors. Vs. Pradip Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN513
1. As prayed for by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants, he is permitted to correct the cause title of the Memorandum of the Appeal in S.A.T. No. 3489 of 2005.2. These two second appeals arise out of a suit for eviction and are directed against a judgment of reversal.3. The only question that arises for determination in these two second appeals is whether in the absence of all the heirs of the deceased contractual tenant, a suit for eviction is maintainable by impleading some of the heirs.4. In the present cases, there is no dispute that on the death of the original tenant some of the heirs have been made parties excluding two of his daughters. The plaintiffs in the plaint have not even made out a case that after the death of the contractual tenant, all his heirs surrendered the tenancy and any new tenancy was created in favour of the defendants alone. The plaint proceeded as if on the death of the contractual tenant the defendants alone inherited the property...
KevIn Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN530,2006(202)ELT751(Cal),2008[10]STR514
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the order dated 4th October, 2005 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, East Regional Bench in Appeal Nos. CDM 93 of 2004 and CDM 94 of 2004 as the said learned Tribunal in the aforesaid order specifically directed that the learned Counsel representing the appellant should file vakalatnama in order to appear and argue the case even though the Advocate-on-Record of the said appellant has already filed vakalatnama.2. I fail to understand why apart from the Advocate-on-Record of the respective party any other learned Counsel should file vakalatnama in order to argue a case on behalf of the client. The Advocate-on-Record representing a litigant has every right and authority to engage a Counsel to argue a matter before the Tribunal and any Counsel being instructed by the Advocate-on-Record is also entitled to argue a matter on behalf of his client before the said Tribuna...
Tapas Kumar Bhanja Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT108(HC)
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. The present writ petition was filed in 2000 by a public spirited lawyer Shri Bhanja. This was predominantly a complaint regarding a home called 'Liluah Home' for the undertrial women. The grievance made in the petition was that there was over all mismanagement in this Home. That the lady prisoners are not at all safe, lot of injustice is perpetrated, they are physically and mentally molested, they are not even provided elementary medical treatment and that there was overall mismanagement. The learned Counsel had also pointed out that number of lady prisoners escaped from the home not to be found again and thus this was a case where there was a gross abuse of human rights.2. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Justice Ashok Kumar Mathur (as His Lordship then was) and the Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta passed an order on 4th May, 2001 transmitting the matter to Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commission was directed to depute som...
University of Calcutta and ors. Vs. Saima Gaziani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal35
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the interim order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. Following facts will help us understand the controversy involved. The writ petitioner is a student. She was admitted to B.Com Honours course starting from session 2001 -2002. As per the curriculum she could appear for the Part-I examination of the B.Com Honours course after two years that is in the examination which was scheduled to be held in 2003. Accordingly she appeared in that examination. For B.Com Honours Part-I, a student has to pass in three groups of subjects. Out of these three groups the first two groups are compulsory subjects and the third group is the Honours subject. The student passed in the Group 1 of the pass group but failed in two papers namely Economics and Mathematics in group II. She, however, passed in the Honours group which was the third group. It was seen from the initial mark sheet that in group II she had failed. She had scored 17 marks in E...