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.
Manthan Brand Band Services Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. C.K.T. Communicatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal317,2005(2)CHN648
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against order dated March 14, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 253 of 2005 thereby disposing of three applications, one under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for prohibitory injunction filed by the plaintiff, the second one, also filed by the plaintiff, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for mandatory order of injunction and the last one, under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the present appellants.2. The plaintiff/respondent filed the aforesaid suit being Title Suit No. 253 of 2005 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta thereby praying for the following relief:--(i) Decree thereby declaring that the defendants have no right to change the position and frequency of the channel of the plaintiff i.e. 'ATN K...
Madhai Das Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN252
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No. 21 dated 5th April, 2003 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 203 of 2002 thereby allowing an application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants and returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction.2. The plaintiff field the aforesaid suit thereby praying for the following relief:'(a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the motor vehicle No. WB-03B-0750 and the plaintiff is entitled to the No Objection Certificate and relevant Forms from the defendant No. 1 upon payment of the entire loan including interest of Rs. 4,87,751/-and the defendants have no right to seize the vehicle.(b) For a declaration that the blank and printed papers and documents be...
Abp Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Cal)404,[2005]278ITR627(Cal)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued by the tax authority under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reopening the case regarding the assessment year 1994-95. The notice for reopening was issued on September 27, 2000, i.e., after four years.2. There is no dispute that on the basis of the revised return submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law the assessment order for the assessment year in question was made by the Assessing Officer on December 27, 1996/January 3, 1997. In the order, the Assessing Officer went to record : 'In response to notice under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), Sri S. Chanda, authorised representative of the assessee-company appeared. The assessee was asked to file details of sundry creditors and credit balance. Advance received against advertisement and subscription. Advance against sales, details of secured loans and sundry debtors, stores consumed, etc. Even information under Section 133(6) was called for ...
West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Indrapuri Studio (P) Ltd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN154
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of West Bengal State Wirehousing Corporation and is directed against an award passed by the arbitrator appointed in terms of Section 11(b) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act).2. Being dissatisfied with such an award dated January 1st, 2003 passed by the arbitrator thereby determining the compensation for the premises requisitioned under the Act this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.3. Mr Mitra, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the owner of the property requisitioned, has taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present appeal.4. According to Mr Mitra, under the Act and the rules framed thereunder, it is the Collector or the person interested in the compensation that can alone prefer an appeal and the appellant not being such a person is not entitled to maintain the present appeal. Mr Mitra points out that the State Gover...
Jalpaiguri Zilla Parishad and anr. Vs. Shankar Prasad Halder
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal1
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 14-1-2000 passed in Money Suit No. 7 of 1997 by a learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jalpaiguri.2. The said suit, being a Money Suit No. 7 of 1997, was filed by the Plaintiff/respondent/Cross-objector praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,60,677/- against: the Defendant/Appellant for loss of profits, damages and compensation.3. The case of the Plaintiff/respondent is that, as a grower and supplier of small plants of different varieties of trees under the name and style of 'Sankar Narayan Nursery', the Plaintiff/respondent agreed to sup ply seed coconut and seed aricanut of East-Coast Tall Variety pursuant to a Notice Inviting Quotation/Tender No. 16/94/95.4. It is the plaint ease that such quotation was issued by the Appellant for supply of the aforesaid items in Malbazar, Moinaguri, Falacata, Majirahat and Alipurduar.5. The plaint case is that the offer of the Plaintiff/respondent was accepte...
Taher Ali Khan Vs. Abdul Hakim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal124,(2006)1CALLT496(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. Throwing a challenge to the judgment dated 6th September, 1986 and decree dated 26th September, 1986 passed by the learned 1st Court, Additional District Judge, Midnapore in T.A. No. 240 of 1985 reversing the judgment dated 21st May, 1985 and decree dated 31st May, 1985 passed by the learned Munstf, 2nd Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No. 22 of 1977, this second appeal has been preferred.2. This second appeal is in connection with a suit for declaration of title in the properties described in the schedule to the plaint to that effect that the lands in dispute are the auction purchased lands of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction.3. In the plaint the case as has been made out by the plaintiff is inter alia as follows :The suit properties belong to one Sahajuddin, who took loan of Rs. 1,800/- on 11-9-1966 from the plaintiff and he accordingly executed a hand note in favour of the plaintiff. Sahajuddin paid only Rs. 15/- towards interest to the plaintiff and Saha...
Nally Bharat Engg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT110(HC)
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel the order dated 9th September, 1997 by which the Commissioner refused to grant interest on interest and to issue a mandate and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant interest for such period during which the payment of interest was delayed. The order dated 9th September, 1977 reads as follows:'The Appellant Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing certain engineering goods for the above mentioned assessment years. It has claimed interest under Section 241(1A) for assessment year (1982-83) and under Section 214 and 241(1A) for assessment year 1985-86 and other years on the amount of interest that it had earned on the refund and for late payment of the said refund interest on the interest amount. The details regarding quantum of interest on interest etc. are not furnished because they are on record ...
Sri Netai Bhattacharjee Vs. Sri Arunoday Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT425(HC)
Maharaj Sinha, J. 1. This first appeal is against the judgement and decree passed in ejectment suit No. 846 of 1984 by the learned Judge of the 11th Court of City Civil Court, at Calcutta, on 24th August, 1999. In the month of August, to be precise on 31st August, 1994, the respondent/plaintiff herein Arunoday Dutta instituted a suit for ejectment against the appellant/defendant herein Netai Chandra Bhattacharjee claiming ejectment of Netai from the suit premises and vacant possession thereof.2. The main grounds upon which the said suit was instituted against the defendant/tenant Netai appear to be as follows:The defendant/tenant Netai 'became a defaulter in payment of monthly rent to the plaintiff since June 1980. The suit premises was reasonably required by the plaintiff, Arun for his own occupation. 3. The defendant, Netai without the consent of his landlord Arun in writing illegally created a sub-tenancy in favour of one Sri Paritosh Chakraborty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(...
Anima Roy and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ1599
P.K. Samanta and Joytosh Banerjee, JJ.1. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-appellants submits that the deficit court-fees as pointed out by the stamp reporter have already been put in. Office is to check up and report immediately.2. This is an application for amendment of the claimed amount in the claim petition that was filed by the claimants-appellants before Claims Tribunal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we take up the above application for disposal along with the appeal itself by treating the same as on day's list.3. The service of notice of this application and the appeal upon respondent No. 2 is dispensed with as the said respondent did not contest the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. The present appeal has arisen out of the judgment and award dated 12.12.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, First Court of Additional District Judge, Howrah in M.A.C. Case No. 250 of 2003. The said claim case arises out of an appl...
Harjeet Singh Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN445,2005CriLJ3286,2005(3)CTC217,[2005(4)JCR422(Cal)]
Amit Talukdar, J.1. Faced with two different versions one of a Division Bench; another of a Single Bench on the impact of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) Batabyal, J. felt that the matter should be referred to 'appropriate authority for constitution of a larger Bench' to decide the question.2. Pursuant thereof this Full Bench has been set up by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice.3. We have been asked to decide as to whether the provisions of Section 362 of the said Code would act* as a bar in recalling an Order passed by the Court when and as to whether it is found that it will offend the principles of natural justice.4. Factual matrix leading to the reference is required to be set out for the purpose of better appreciation of the entire gamut of the matter.5. A revisional application was moved before this Court on behalf of one Harjeet Singh, son of Sardar Har Bhajan Singh making the State as opposite party No. 1 and one P.G. Enterpr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »