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.
Workmen rep. by South Eastern Roadways Workmen's Union and Anr. Vs. Vi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN166,[2005(105)FLR395],(2005)IILLJ1020Cal
D.K. Seth, J.The Scope:1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated May 7, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in Matter No. 2880 of 1993 dismissing the writ petition arising out of the Award dated June 30, 1993 passed by the learned 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. Three issues were referred to the Tribunal for being adjudicated upon, namely, (i) Whether order dated November 28, 1985 transferring Shri B.N. Sharma from Fntally to Burrabazar unit is justified? To what relief, if any, is he entitled? (ii) Whether lock-out of the establishment at 25, Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Calcutta with effect from March 11, 1986 and lock-out from April 8, 1986 are justified? To what relief if any, are the workmen entitled? and (iii) Whether the closure of the establishment at 25 Dr. Suresh Sarkar Road, Calcutta and 134/4, M.G. Road, Calcutta-7 is real? To what relief, if any, are the workmen entitled? All these issues were answered in favour of the employer. This was challenged bef...
West Dinajpur Chamber of Commerce and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN391
Pratap Kr. Ray, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. In the instant application the petitioners, who are running that respective businesses outside of the jurisdiction of Kaliagunj Regulated Market Committee, have challenged the notices issued by Kaliagunj Regulated Market Committee demanding market fees and directing them to obtain licence from the said committee. By a demand notice dated 24th December, 1990, the learned Advocate on behalf of the writ petitioners lodged grievance by contending that since the petitioners were running the business in the places, which are outside of the Kaliagunj market area namely in the areas Bansihari, Kusmandi, Hemtabad, Itahar and Raigunj, which under the statutes as yet are not controlled by setting up respective market committees, the Kaliagunj Market Committee had no jurisdiction to charge market fees and also cannot direct the petitioners to apply for the licence under the said committee to run their businesses. As noth...
Kalyan Kumar Dutta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT536(HC)
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. Who is superior An elected representative of a body corporate or a paid employee engaged by the body.Answer of this question would play a key role in resolving the controversy germane in this writ petition.Respondents2. Respondent No. 2 is a body incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. Primary object of the respondent No. 2 is to assist and promote engineering export abroad. The members of the respondent No. 2 are exporters doing their business within the country for exporting their products abroad. Under the Article of ssociation for a prescribed term members elect their representative to the board which is called council. Head of the council is Chairman and under Clause 22 he is the person primarily responsible for the affairs the council. There are various committees set up for the purpose of smooth administration of the council. Those committees are constituted from amongst the members. Apart from the members as well as the elected representati...
Suvobrata Guha Alias Basu Vs. Snigdha Basu (Guha) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN661
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order by which the learned 5th Civil Judge, Junior Division at Alipore in Title Suit No. 235 of 2004.2. The plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court.3. This application is directed against an order by which the learned Trial Judge rejected the petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that if amendment as sought for is allowed, the right of the defendant which has been accrued on the basis of the statement made by the petitioner in his original plaint in paragraphs 14 and 19 thereof, will be defeated, as the petitioner is seeking to bring on record some new inconsistent facts by deleting the facts already stated by him in paragraphs 14 and 19 thereof relating to the actual ownership of the suit property.4. Heard the learned Advocates of the parties and considered the materials on record.5. On perusal of the original pleadings made by the pet...
Jyoti Benod Biswas and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN261
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Sections 401, 482 & 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Code), 1973 has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being Case No. C-764/01 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Alipore under Sections 498A, 406 & 114 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).2. The aforesaid case was started on the basis of complaint lodged by opposite party No. 2 as complainant in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24-Parganas at Alipore. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant was married with petitioner No. 1 according to their Hindu rites and customs on 26.11.96. After marriage she was taken to her matrimonial home and on 28.11.96, on the day of 'fulsajya' the petitioner No. 1 consumed full bottle of liquor in her presence. Next day, all the petitioners and others hurled insulting comments relating to marriage gifts and the petitioners and others deman...
Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force Vs. Ashok Kumar Mishra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN638
1. This appeal at the instance of the Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, North Bengal Frontier Headquarter, Siliguri, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18th February, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12508(W) of 2003, allowing the writ application and quashing the show-cause notice issued by the Commandant, 97 Battalion, Border Security Force. The present application has been made for stay of the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in the appeal.2. Appearing in support of the application for stay, Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel contended that in the instant case after the writ petitioner had been acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as the 'SSFC'), the matter was referred to the Commandant (SHQ), the Officiating DIG of the concerned area, in terms of Rule 160 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. After going through the proceedings o...
S.K. Bhagat and Co. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)195CTR(Cal)444,[2005]275ITR464(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The question :The question involved in this case is very short, viz., whether the allowance of claim of Rs. 1,84,375 as bad debt out of the dues shown at Rs. 6,61,723 in the books of account could be justified under Section 36(1)(vii) r/w Section 36(2) of the IT Act, 1961.Department/Respondent's contention :2. Relying on the facts Mr. Sailen Dutta, learned counsel for the Revenue, submitted that from the relevant materials available on record that in the present case the assessee was unable to establish that the debt became irrecoverable for the purpose of being written off simply on the ground that the assessee had agreed to accept the award of the arbitrator and which ultimately it had accepted. Therefore, according to him, the assessee had waived or foregone its claim by its conduct without attempting to recover the said amount of difference between the claim and the award. Therefore, once the claim is waived or foregone, there cannot be any question of there being a...
State of West Bengal Vs. Brojesh Chandra Singha Barman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN19
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This is an application at the instance of State of West Bengal represented by the Collector, Howrah, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1927 days in filing a first appeal against the order dated 23rd February, 1998 passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Howrah in L. A. Misc. Case No. 33 of 1987 thereby enhancing the valuation of the acquired land from Rs. 2287/- to Rs. 10,000/- per cottah.2. The appellant has given the following reasons in support of the prayer for condonation of delay:(a) The judgment impugned having been passed on 23rd February, 1998 the Government Pleader, Howrah sent the copy of the judgment without any authentication to the department of L.A. Collector on 10th March, 1998.(b) On 7th January, 2001 on receiving the authenticated copy, a proposal was sent for getting the certified copy from the office of the Collector, Howrah to the office of the Govt. Pleader.(c) As the concerned L. A. case was not traced ...
The Inspector General of Police and ors. Vs. Encorp E-service Limited ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT17(HC)
Asok Kumar Ganguly J.1. Both these appeals were filed against an interim order of injunction granted by a learned Judge of the Writ Court on two writ petitions, one of which has been filed by M/s. Encorp E-services Ltd. and the other one has been filed by one Mr. T. Senthil Kumar. Both the writ petitions raise identical questions of Act and law and the prayer for interim order made in both the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Judge by judgment and order dated 7th January, 2005. Against the said grant of interim order, which has virtually stayed the criminal investigation, the Inspector General of Police, Kolkata has filed these two appeals.2. With the consent of the parties we are treating both the appeals along with the applications for stay as on day's list as the counsel for both the parties asked this Court to dispose of the appeals finally. As such, we are disposing of both the appeals by this common Judgment.3. The facts in both the writ petitions are virtually iden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›