Kolkata Court March 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.
The West Bengal Housing Board and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT293(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. A short question of law has arisen in this writ petition by which the petitioners challenge an award made by the reference Court in an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. The land in question was acquired for the first petitioner. Persons aggrieved by the award made by the collector, as to the amount of compensation, filed the Section 18 application. The collector accordingly referred the matter for determination of the Court. In the reference proceeding before the Court neither the first petitioner was made a party, nor was it served with any notice of any nature. Only after receipt of notice from the assistant secretary of the State Government dated November 16th, 2004, it has come to learn about the award made by the reference Court increasing the amount of compensation. Correctness of these facts is not disputed by the parties.3. Counsel for the referring claimants does not also dispute the legal position that the first petit...
Anuradha Khemka Nee Bansal Vs. Sudarshan Kumar Khemka and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN179
Amit Talukdar, J.1. This is an application for cancellation of bail filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) by the complainant/petitioner. She feels aggrieved by the interim bail granted to the opposite party No. 1 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar on 21.1.2005 in connection with G. R. Case No. 530 of 2005 arising out of Lake Town Police Station Case No. 320 dated 20.12.2004 under Sections 417, 420, 354, 498A, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code + Sections 3 and 4 the Dowry Prohibition Act.2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the interim bail granted by the learned Magistrate was passed on a holiday remand on the ground that the health condition of the opposite party No. 1 was not good; but, however, without looking into any medical documents the said order was passed. He further submitted that how could the learned Magistrate determine in the absence...
Lalta Prosad Jaiswal and ors. Vs. Controller, Calcutta Thika Tenancy a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT365(HC),2005(3)CHN125
D.K. Seth, J.1. Section 6(3) of the Calcutta Thika and other Tenancies and Land (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 prescribes that the interests of thika tenants and tenants of other lands holding directly under the State under Sub-section (1) shall be heritable and shall not be transferable except inter se amongst the heirs and existing co-shares interest or to the prospective heirs, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 7.2. Section 6(1) prescribes the incidence of tenancies in respect of lands vested in the State under the 1981 Act.3. Section 7(1) permits the thika tenants and tenants of other lands holding directly under the State to let out in whole or in part structures existing on, or constructed after, the date of commencement of the 1981 Act on such lands but not any vacant land or any part thereof. Whereas Sub-section (2) prescribes that any transfer or agreement for transfer, whether oral or in writing, in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section ...
Gopee Nath Paul and Sons and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2005
Reported in: [2005]278ITR240(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.The point :1. In this case, the liability of one of the firms Gobindo Sheet Metal Works and Foundry held to be the erstwhile firm under the name and style of which the assessee was carrying on business could satisfy the test of being expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the assets of the assessee for the purpose of computation of capital gains for the assessment year 1992-93. In order to ascertain the proposition reference to the factual aspects of the case are required to be referred to.The submission:2. Dr. Pal, learned senior counsel, ably assisted by Mr. J. P. Khaitan, pointing out to the various materials submitted that there is already a finding of fact to the extent that the assessee was carrying on business under the name and style of Gobindo Sheet Metal Works and Foundry (Gobindo Sheet Metal). It is also pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that the Gobindo Sheet Metal was an assessee, on the other hand, the...
Rajesh Kumar and ors. Vs. Rajan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN633,[2006(110)FLR604]
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated December 21, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair.2. The writ petitioners, by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenged the selection process in the posts of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Co-operative Societies. The said application was registered as O.A. No. 67/AN/2002.3. Before the judgment could be pronounced in the said case, the petitioners filed an application for withdrawal of the said application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was contended that all the petitioners were not interested to proceed with the said application as by efflux of time they have got their own sources of income. The said application was registered as MA No. 29/AN/2005.4. The Tribunal, however, by the order impugned, rejected such application ...
General Manager, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN503,[2005(107)FLR801],(2005)IIILLJ432Cal
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1 This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated March 15, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, in I.D. Case No. 40 of 2000.2. The respondent No. 1 was employed as waiter for a period of six months with effect from the date of his joining by an Order No. 669 dated October 3, 1997. The contract of employment was renewed from time to time. Lastly, the contract was renewed, by an Order No. 732 dated October 29, 1999, up to October 31, 1999. Since the contract of employment was not renewed, disputes and differences arose between the employer and the workman concerned and ultimately, a reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court was requested to adjudicate as to whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the respondent No. 1 was legal and justified and what relief the workman concerned was entitled to.3. The learned Presiding O...
Usha Ghosh Vs. Rabindranath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal190
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. Three second appeals being S.A. Nos. 192. 193 and 194 of 1999 came up for hearing together inasmuch these three second appeals came out of analogous judgments passed by the first appellate Court hearing three first appeals analogously, consequent to the judgment and decree (single) passed in three title suits which were also heard analogously. The factual background of the three appeals in brief can be stated in the manner as follows :-One Sarojini Sarkar, the grandmother of Sri Kanak Kr. Sarkar (the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 614 of 1978) was the zamindar in respect of the property in C.S. Dag No. 235 under C.S. Khatian No. 1497 in Mouza-Chanak. In R. S. Record of Rights the said Dag and Khatian were split up and recorded as Dag No. 1) 557, Khatian No.-1970 where occupant was shown as Dhanapati Bhakat; 2) Dag No. 558, Khatian No.-1971 where occupant shown as Ramcharan Ram and; 3) Dag No. 559, Khatian No.-1972 which was shown as Dakhalkar Chandina under the occu...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN31,[2005(106)FLR20],(2005)IIILLJ277Cal
D.K. Seth, J.1. An award dated November 15, 1999 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in Reference No. 6 of 1998, was assailed in the writ petition being W.P. No. 1786 (W) of 2000, since beer dismissed by the learned single Judge by an order dated June 17, 2001 declining to interfere with the award on the grounds recorded therein, has since been challenged in this appeal.The Appellants' Submission:2. A reference was made with regard to the action of the management in not regularizing the 540 Muster Roll Workers and denying them equal pay for equal work and other facilities, which the regular workmen were enjoying. This was sought to be defended by Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Farakka Barrage Project on two-fold grounds First that no industrial dispute could be maintained against the management of Farakka Barrage Project since the management discharged sovereign function in the distribution or sharing ...
Rajani Kanta Burman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT488(HC)
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.The Court : This is a suit for recovery of possession of premises No. 6, Clive Row, Hastings, Calcutta together with mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated is that the plaintiff purchased premises No. 6, Clive Row, Hastings House at an auction sale. Originally the premises No. 6, Clive Row, Hastings, Calcutta belonged to the defendant No. 2 who defaulted in making payment of the ground rent to the Revenue Authority as a result whereof the Revenue Authority put up the premises for sale under the provisions of Public Demand Recovery Act. The amount due from the defendant No. 2 was certificated but the certificate remained unsatisfied which culminated in the sale of the premises. The plaintiff was the highest bidder. The sale was concluded in his favour. After the sale was concluded in his favour the defendant No. 1 namely Union of India and the defendant No. 2 namely Seamen's Welfare Association both resorted to various proceedings challenging the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.G. Sales (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Cal)277,[2005]278ITR140(Cal)
1. The application for condonation of delay was vehemently opposed by the learned advocate for the respondent. He contended that there was time gap, which are unexplained. The learned advocate for the appellant, on the other hand, contended that the delay has been sufficiently explained.2. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the delay has sufficiently been explained. Accordingly, we allow the application for condonation of delay. Delay is condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.3. Let the appeal be registered.4. After the delay is condoned, the learned advocates for the parties have addressed the court on the merits of the case and insisted upon for taking up the appeal for admission. At this stage of admission of hearing, we have permitted the learned advocate for the respondent to address on the question of admission though formally he is not entitled to any hearing at this stage.5. After having heard the learned advocat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »