Kolkata Court April 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.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Sunil Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(199)ELT587(Cal)
ORDER1. By an order dated 4th September, 2001 [2003 (162) E.L.T. 830 (Tri. - Kolkata)] the CEGAT had allowed the appeal against penalty by one Sri Sunil Ghosh on the ground that there was no direct evidence that the said Sunil Ghosh was the owner of the goods. A rectification application was filed on 29th December, 2003 that there were direct evidence to implicate Sunil Ghosh by one Manoj Kumar Paswan and, therefore, the order should be rectified. The learned CEGAT dismissed the rectification application by its order dated 15th March, 2004 on the ground that it was not an application for rectification but an application for review. This order has since been challenged.2. Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the appellant has made elaborate arguments on this point which is opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. Section 129B permits rectification of an order by the Appellate Tribunal within the period of four years, since amended to six months, w.e.f. 11th May, 2002. However,...
General Fibre Dealers (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)95TTJ(Kol.)1030
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1995-96 is directed against the order of the CIT(A). The appeal is barred by limitation by 3 days and the assessee has filed a condonation application with a request to condone the delay in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. The counsel for the assessee-submitted that, in fact, the appeal in the prescribed Form No. 36 was filed in time on the last day of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. However, due to some mistake in computer printing, 1-2 lines at bottom of the page of Form No. 36 were not printed and, therefore, the assessee filed a revised Form No. 36 with enclosures before the Tribunal on 30th Nov., 2004, and the delay may be condoned. The learned Departmental Representative has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. He stated that the assessee should have taken due precautions in filing the correct Form No. 36 before the Tribunal. We have considered the rival submissions. Considering the ...
Shakti Sankar Dey and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN161,(2005)IIILLJ500Cal
Soumitra Sen, J.1. This writ application has been filed by two petitioners. Both the petitioners were engaged on diverse dates as casual workers in the capacity of Security Strappers. The Air India Limited had engaged a Contractor, namely, M/s. General Security Information Services for supply of certain casual labourers and the petitioner was supplied to the Air India by the said Contractor to work as a casual labour.2. The basic contention of the petitioners is that they have been engaged as a Security Strapper with Air India with effect from 23rd of December, 1991 and has been in continuous service for over 240 days without any break. Therefore, they are entitled to be absorbed in the permanent employment of Air India.3. The petitioners have also contended that the work carried out by them is perennial in nature and therefore in accordance with the established legal principles they are entitled to be absorbed in the Air India as a permanent staff.4. It was also submitted that all ben...
Manoj Mohan Ghosh and anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN11
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgement and order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Eastern Zone, Kotkata, appointed under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in case No. EO/71/0603/Misc of 2002.2. By the order impugned the petitioners' application under Section 7(1) of the said Act was rejected by the Estate Officer.3. The petitioners were the lessees in respect of Flat No. 11 of Metropolitan Building, 3rd floor, Premises No. 7, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700013.4. The term of the lease period expired by efflux of time on 31.7.1988. Thereafter, the L.I.C.I. landlord/opposite party herein, continued to realise rent from the petitioners till April, 1997. The petitioners though tendered rent to the opposite party herein for the subsequent period but the opposite p...
Somak Das Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT465(HC),[2005(107)FLR308]
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. Heard finally with consent of parties.2. This matter pertains to the selection and appointment of petitioner for the post of West Bengal Civil Services (Judicial) 2003. The writ petitioner appeared for the necessary tests and admittedly cleared them. However, there was one more factor which he had reported while applying for the candidature. He had pointed out that he was suffering from physical disability and he was a physically challenged candidate. He was not selected and, therefore, he approached the Court by way of writ petition wherein he pointed out that there was no reservation provided in terms of Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The learned Judge took the view that the petitioner had appeared at the selection test, succeeded and thereafter was called for interview but he was not selected. It was clear that he had participated in the selection process as a general ca...
Anwor Ali Halder Vs. Sakina Bibi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT129(HC),2005(3)CHN649,II(2005)DMC840
Asit Kumar Bisi, J.1. The present revisional application under Section 397/ 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the present petitioner Anwor AH Halder is directed against the order dated 15th April, 2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly (Sadar) in M.C. Case No. 13 of 2002. By the order impugned the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate allowed the application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Sakina Bibi presently 0. P. No. 1 and awarded allowance for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month in her favour and Rs. 750/- per month for her daughter Rima Halder with effect from the date of the said order.2. The facts anterior to filing of the instant revision application may be narrated thus.3. Sakina Bibi presently O.P. No. 1 filed a case for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as M.C. 104 of 1985 and by the order passed on 26th December, 1985 the lear...
Lyons Corporate Market Ltd. and ors. Vs. Uma Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT212(HC)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. The appellants made an application under Order 1 Rule 8 sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for being added as party to the suit on the ground that they are parties interested. The Notice of Motion indicated that they have wanted to be parties as defendants whereas in the application the prayer is only for being added as party to this suit. The affidavit in respect of the application does not disclose in what capacity the appellants intended to intervene.1.1. Admittedly, leave under Order 1 Rule 8 was granted and the notice was published on 30th April, 2004 and 4th May, 2004. The application was affirmed on 9th July, 2004 and was filed on 13th July, 2004 namely, after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice under Order 1 Rule 8 so published.1.2. The learned single Judge in its order dated 27th September, 2004 referred to the decisions in the case of Vassonji Tricumji v. Esmailbhai Shivji and Ors., ILR 34 Bombay 420; T.G. Jog v. Muir Mills L...
Jharu Mondal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN568
Amit Talukdar, J.1. In this appeal the conviction of the appellants in respect of the charges of Sections 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code forms the subject-matter of consideration, which has been passed by the learned Fast Track, Second Court, Krishnanagar in Sessions Trial No. 2(7)2002 on 28.3.2003 thereby sentencing both the appellants in respect of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence in respect of the charge of Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was however passed.2. Pursuant to a chargesheet, submitted by P.W.10 the Investigating Officer the appellants were directed to answer the following charges :'Firstly, That in furtherance of common intention all of you, on or about the 20th day of March, 2000 at 00 hours of night at Ramnagar P.S.--Tehatta, Nadia, kidnapped Nandarani Mondal in order that the said Nand...
Registrar General of High Court and anr. Vs. Chitra Biswas and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN110
D. K. Seth, J.1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15th of October, 2004 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No. 236 of 2004, quashing the order of transfer- principally on the ground of discrimination, non-application of mind, violation of the principles of natural justice and equity as well as the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.2. Mr. Jayanta Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the order on various grounds whereas Mr. Debashis Kundu appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner supported the order and countered the submission of Mr. Mitra. We shall be dealing with the respective contentions raised by the respective Counsel with reference to the respective arguments as hereafter.Facts:3. In order to appreciate the situation, a brief reference to th...
Ashok Roy Vs. C.B.i., A.C.B.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN225
Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. The present case arises out of an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. This is directed against order dated 9th July, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Purulia, in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2001. The said case arose out of Crime No. RC-04/S/98-CAL dated 20th August, 1998.3. Grievances of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows :The petitioner is an accused in the sessions case as referred to earlier, for his alleged involvement in commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 348/330/306/465/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.The said case was registered by the respondent being C.B.I., A.C.B., Calcutta, pursuant to an order dated 6.7.1998 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 3715 of the 1998. In compliance with the said order, the C.B.I, took up investigation of the Barabazar Police Station Case No. 5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »