Kolkata Court February 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.
Abdus Salam Mahalder and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN303
Indira Banerjee, J.1. This writ application is directed against the action of the respondents in not recognising Benadaha A. K. M. Junior High Madrasah (hereinafter referred to as the Madrasah).2. The petitioners have, inter alia, challenged an order dated June 28, 2004 of the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education rejecting the prayer for recognition of the Madrasah.The grounds for rejection of the Madrasah as set forth in the impugned order are as follows:'1. The said Madrasah was established only in 1993. Violating the G. O. 643-Edn(S) dt. 5.6.86.2. The building and other infrastructure are poor. So is the attendance of the students.3. There is another Madrasah at a distance of 5 k.m.The (S. E.) Deptt., Govt. of W. B. also not recommended for granting recognition of the Madrasah'.The Govt. order referred to in the order impugned provides for approval to set up a Madrasah. The directions in the Government order are not mandatory and cannot be a ground for rejection of an application...
Himadri Sekhar Biswas and ors. Vs. Behala College and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN68
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The three writ petitioners are students of the first respondent (a college). By this writ petition they seek a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent, the Principal of the college, to rescind the election notice dated February 10th, 2005, and the notice fixing the election programme dated February 15th, 2005.2. There is no dispute that the election of class representatives to form the students' union, 2005 is held in terms of the constitution of students' union of the college; and that such constitution has no force of law.3. Counsel for the petitioners argues that the steps taken by the Principal for holding the election have public law element and public character with an imprint of public interest. In support of such contention he cites to me the Apex Court decisions in L/C of India v. Consumer Education & Research Centre, AIR 1985 SC 1811 (para. 28), and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, : AIR2004SC1402 .4. I agree with him that any action taken by...
Shovan Kumar Ruj Vs. Victoria Memorial Hall, Service Through the Secre ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN414
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The writ petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Conservation Assistant in Victoria Memorial Hall (hereinafter referred to as Victoria Memorial).2. Victoria Memorial was set up by the Victoria Memorial Act, 1903 as amended from time to time by the Central Government. The Victoria Memorial is managed and looked after by a trust and His Excellency The Governor of West Bengal is Ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Trustee.3. By an advertisement dated 20/26th July, 2002, the Victoria Memorial, inter alia, invited applications for the post of Conservation Assistant (two vacancies). The advertisement reads as follows:'Scale Rs. 4,500-125-7,000/- + usual allowances as admissible. Number of Vacancies : 02 (Two), Nature of Reservation : Unreserved, Age : Not to exceed 35 years as on 1st July, 2002. Qualification : Essential: (a) A Bachelor Degree in Science from a recognized University with Chemistry and Physics or Chemistry and Zoology, (b) Conversant with various...
Shyama Singh and ors. Vs. Cesc Limited and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN169
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner in connection with the application for grant of leave to file the appeal.2. The subject-matter of dispute is the grant of electricity connection to the respondent/writ petitioner. On a writ petition being filed (W.P. No. 5550(W)/04) by the writ petitioner for grant of new electricity connection, a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 10th June, 2004 disposed of the writ petition by directing the CESC authorities to give connection upon completion of necessary formalities. The present petitioner before us was not a party to the said proceeding, as such, an application has been filed for leave to file an appeal along with the stay petition and also a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the admitted position that the writ petitioner was initially inducted by the present petitioner as a licensee as per the version of the present petitioner, w...
Siddharth Construction and Trading Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2005
Reported in: [2006]144STC198(Cal)
1. After hearing Mr. Gangopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Ms. Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Maitra, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents, it appears that the only point requires adjudication by this Court at this stage is whether the petitioner should be given any interest on the amount deposited earlier or not. The Tribunal by passing the impugned order dated August 6, 2004 [Anil Kumar Todi v. A.C.C.T., Colootala Charge (Case No. 316 of 2004)] did not really enter into that aspect and refused to allow the interest though no ground was assigned for such refusal. It was observed by the learned Tribunal that the payment order has to be issued along with the demand notice where the excess amount of realisation of tax has been admitted, i.e., in form VII.2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the court to various earlier decisions of this Court as well as the decisions of the Tribunal al...
Pritam Daftary Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Cal)304,[2006]283ITR259(Cal)
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The present appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').2. The facts are the assessee was the director of M/s Cosmopolitan Construction (P) Ltd. (for short 'CCPL'). A diary marked UPD 10 was seized in course of search and seizure against CCPL. Particular entries in UPD 10 reflected that CCPL received consideration amount in cheque as well as in cash against the flats purchased under project P-206. The cheques were accounted for but it was alleged that the cash entries were unaccounted. This was sought to be alleged as income of the assessee out of his own business. Assessee contended that the sum of Rs. 2,95,002 belonged to the CCPL. CCPL had earlier moved the Settlement Commission and made disclosures with details pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1989-90, CCPL filed an application before the Commission disclosing ...
Sadhan Dutta and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT321(HC),II(2005)DMC686
A.K. Basu, J.1. In Sessions Trial No. 3 of March, 1991 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 6 of December, 1990 before the learned Sessions Judge Bankura, five persons namely Sadhan Dutta, Smt. Radharani Dutta, Nayan Dutta, Namita Dutta and Manju Dutta faced the trial under Sections 498(A) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge by His judgment dated 31st July, 1995 held Sadhan Dutta and Radharani Dutta guilty under Sections 498(A) and 302 of the IPC and while Radharani Dutta was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-in default, rigorous imprisonment for 10 days, Sadhan Dutta was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence was passed as regards the offence under Section 498(A) IPC against any of the convicted persons.2. At the time of hearing of this appeal it has been submitted from the Bar that Radharani Dutta who wa...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dipali Raj and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC510,2006ACJ2675
P.K. Samanta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.1. The present appeal is against an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Alipore, Addl. District Judge, Fifth Court awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,69,500 to claimant whose husband died in a motor accident that took place on 3.12.1999. The offending vehicle was a bus operating on route No. 12C/1B. In the memorandum of appeal various grounds have been taken but the counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company has urged before us only one point, which according to him is a pure question of law. His case is that though the policy was issued to the owner of the bus, the cheque through which the premium was paid was subsequently dishonoured and hence insurance company ought to be absolved of its liability arising under the policy. Before the Claims Tribunal in the written statement, this point was not specifically taken at the initial stage but was introduced by way of additional written statement. This additional written statement...
Saraswati Mondal Vs. Sachidulal Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal257,2005(2)CHN408
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two appeals were heard analogously as those are preferred against the common judgment dated 30th August, 2000 passed by the learned Judge, 8th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in two suits being Title Suit No. 2234 of 1981 and Title Suit No. 1513 of 1989 thereby decreeing both the suits.2. The facts giving rise to filing of those two suits may be summed up thus:(a) One Gopi Kanta Saha, the father of the parties had eight annas share in premises No. 5A, Ram Mohan Saha Lane, Calcutta. The said Gopi Kanta Saha executed a Will dated 29th July, 1966 bequeathing his right, title and interest in the property in favour of his wife Sushilabala. On May 14, 1968 the said Gopi Kanta Saha died living behind his widow Sushilabala, one son, the respondent No. 1 herein and two daughters, the appellant and respondent No. 2 respectively.(b) On 17th September, 1968 Sushilabala filed an application for grant of probate of the Will of Gopi Kanta Saha dated 29th July, 196...
Kalidas Sadhu Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal274,2005(2)CHN511
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 17 dated June 1, 2004 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1150 of 2003 thereby disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff by directing the parties to maintain status quo as on that day in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the suit.2. The respondent filed the aforesaid suit being Title Suit No. 1150 of 2003 thereby praying for declaration that the letter dated 19th May, 2003 issued by the appellant had no force in the eye of law and not binding on the parties and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant, his men and agents and servants from encumbering the premises No. 243N, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, P.S. Burtolla and from parting with possession or inducting any p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »