Kolkata Court December 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.
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba (Toshiba Corporation) Vs. Toshiba Appliances ... Overruled
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT601(HC),2006(1)CHN487,2006(32)PTC243(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge on the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 109 of the Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 from the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Calcutta.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the laws of Japan and carries on business in various electronic and electrical goods. The appellant claims to be the proprietor of the registered trade mark Toshiba having trade mark No. 273758 in respect of class 7 goods. Such registration is dated 26th July, 1971 and is in respect of Current Generators, Induction Motors (Electric), Electric Washing Machines. Compressors (Machinery), Electrical Tool Set consisting of Electric Drills (Machines), Spin Dryers and Can Openers.3. The respondent Tosiba Appliances Company Ltd., an Indian company, claims to have been carrying on business in various electrical appliances and have been selling ...
Suresh Mahato Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT248(HC),2006(2)CHN78
Alok Kumar Basu, J. 1. Suresh Mahato being convicted under Section 302/302 of the IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial Case No. XLII (June of 1996) arising out of G.R. Case No. 166 of 1996 corresponding to Kharagpur (town) Case No.22 of 1996 dated 2nd February 1996 preferred this appeal challenging his order of conviction and sentence.2. Ramnath Sinha was the son of one Birjuram Sinha of Gattarpara under Kharagpur (town) P.S. in the District of Midnapore. Ramnath Sinha was an employee of the cement shop of one Suresh Agarwal. On 1st February, 1996 Ramnath had left his house to join his duty and in course of his duty, he had been to the business place of appellant Suresh Mahato who was also a dealer of cement to bring money due to his employer. Ramnath Sinha did not return to his house for the whole day and for this reason a general diary was lodged at the P.S. by his employer.3. As Ramnath Sinha was not traceable on the next day i.e. on 2...
Krishna Prosad Chatterjee Vs. Satyen Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN148
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. One Nagendra Bala Devi died leaving a Will. The applicant claims to be the propounder of the said Will. According to the applicant he was the 'Viksha Putra' of the deceased whereas the opposite party submits that he was the lawyer of the deceased.2. However, Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly objects to the above fact being recorded as according to him the aforesaid fact has not found place in any of the pleadings.3. After the death of the testatrix her daughter-in-law Smt. Ashalata Ganguly sold the property belonged to the deceased to the opposite party by a deed of sale. When the probate proceeding was initiated Ashalata initially contested the said probate proceeding by filing written objection. However, during the pendency of the probate proceeding she died. The opposite party wanted to participate in the said proceeding stepping into the shoes of the Ashalata. The issue was once brought to this Court by way of a revi...
Kamal Adhikary Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN698
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The petitioner's application for obtaining water connection to his premises being Holding No, 627/535 Mohalla Chhotogalli Lane, Chinsura, was rejected by the municipal authorities on the ground that such connection cannot be given unless all the owners of the said holding give consent for taking water connection by the petitioner in the said premises.2. Admittedly, the petitioner is the co-owner of the said premises.3. The only question which has cropped up in this writ petition is as to whether a co-owner can obtain water connection in a joint property without obtaining consent from the other co-owner.4. Section 231 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 not only recognizes the right of an owner but also recognized the right of an occupier of a premises in getting water-connection subject to compliance of the necessary formalities as provided in the said Act or the rules framed thereunder,5. Thus, when the right of an occupier is also recognized for gettin...
Kamal Adhikari Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-2005
Reported in: 1(2006)CLT432
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The petitioner's application for obtaining water connection to his premises being Holding No. 627/535 Mohalla Chhotogalli Lane, Chinsura, was rejected by the municipal authorities on the ground that such connection cannot be given unless all the owners of the said holding give consent for taking water connection by the petitioner in the said premises.2. Admittedly the petitioner is the co-owner of the said premises.3. The only question which has cropped up in this writ petition is as to whether a co-owner can obtain water connection in a joint property without obtaining consent from the other co-owner,4. Section 231 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1953 not only recognizes the right of an owner but also recognized the right of an occupier of a premises in getting water connection subject to compliance of the necessary formalities as provided in the said Act or the Rules framed thereunder.5. Thus, when the right of an occupier is also recognized for getting...
Anil Kumar Bhuinya Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN672
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19-2.05 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court, Midnapore (West) under Indian Electricity Act (in short I.E. Act) in connection with I.E. Act Case No. 231/04 arising out of Daspur P.S. Case No. 127/96 for alleged offence punishable under Section 39 of the I.E. Act, 1910 read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and praying for direction that the said case should be tried by competent Magistrate.2. Mr. Arup Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that initially the case was started against this petitioner in the year 1996 under Section 39 of the then Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (since repealed) read with Section 379 of the IPC arising out of Daspur P.S. Case No. 127 dated 24.4.96. In the said case one witness was examined before the new Electricity Act, 2003 came into force w.e.f. 15.7.02. According to Section 154 o...
Al-haz Amir Hasan Properties (P) Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)100ITD441Cal
1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT Under Section 263 dated 02.12.2004 for the assessment year 2001-02.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a company derives rental income from house Property, service charges and interest income. The return was filed showing an income of Rs. 35,79,440/-.During the course of assessment proceeding the assessee produced books of accounts alongwith relevant vouchers and the same were test checked by the Assessing Officer. As requisitioned, the assessee also filed details of service charges, sundry expenses and details of advances. On examination of the details of expenses the Assessing Officer found that the expenses under the head phenyl, acid, washing and cleaning of premises and drainage cleaning, tubewell, pump maintenance etc. have been incurred through self-made vouchers which are not properly verifiable, therefore, he disallowed Rs. 10,000/- out of such expenses claime...
Meghnath Alias Meghchand Mondal, Rasibala Mondal and Jaladhar Mondal V ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT282(HC),2006(1)CHN679,I(2006)DMC826
Alok Kumar Basu, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura in connection with Sessions Trial No. l(ll)/1990 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 3(5)/1989.2. Meghnath Mondal, his wife Rasibala and his son Jaladhar faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 498A/302/201 of the IPC and alternatively under Section 304(B) of the IPC on the allegation of subjecting Rina Mondal, wife of Jaladhar Mondal to cruelty and causing death of said Rina Mondal within seven years of her marriage.3. It was the prosecution case, as revealed from the first information report of one Prakash Ghosh, that Rina was married to appellant Jaladhar and since marriage Jaladhar and his parents namely Meghnath and Rasibala were not pleased with the payment of dowry and for that reason, Rina was subjected to continuous harassment and torture.4. Prakash Ghosh, on receiving information on 25.3.1988 about the deat...
Atindra Nath Chakrabarty Vs. Anil Kumar Chakravarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal88,2006(1)CHN521
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff No. 2 in a suit for partition and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th September, 1965 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nadia in Title Suit No. 20 of 1962 thereby declaring eight annas share of the plaintiffs in the suit property with a finding that the remaining eight annas share are held by defendant No. 1, the pro forma defendant Nos. 2, 5 and 6 jointly.2. Two plaintiffs filed a suit for partition against the defendant No. 1 claiming that they had jointly acquired twelve annas share in the property and that the defendant No. 1 had the balance four annas share. In the said suit, the pro forma defendant Nos.2 and 4 were made parties because the name of pro forma defendant No. 2 figured as purchasers along with plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and the pro forma defendant No. 4 was the mother of the proforma defendant No. 2 who was admittedly a minor at the time of acquisition of the...
J.M. Baxi and Company Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal94,2006(1)CHN695
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 2 in a suit for recovery of money on account of shortage of goods and mutilation of part thereof and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th October, 1988 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore in Money Suit No. 41 of 1972 thereby passing a decree of Rs. 72, 860.95p against both the defendants.2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit against defendants claiming damages on account of short-landing of goods and marring of part thereof on the allegation that defendant No. 1, the owner of the vessel, agreed to deliver 9900 Metric Tons of Ammonium Nitrate Phosphate at the ports of Pondichery and Calcutta but the defendant No. 2, the agent of defendant No. 1 delivered lesser amount of goods as detailed in the plaint. It was further alleged that part of the goods received was in messed-up condition making those unusable. In the plaint, the plaintiff in paragrap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›