Kolkata Court May 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.
Abb Limited and anr. Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN34
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged the decision of the respondent authorities regarding rejection of the tender bid of the petitioner No. 1 for alleged discrepancy in the bank guarantee on various grounds mentioned in the writ petition.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent authorities have kept the petitioner No. 1 out of participation in the tender on the ground that the bank guarantee is not in terms of the proforma as prescribed by the West Bengal State Electricity Board.3. Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the bank guarantee has been filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 in prescribed form and the alleged defect as pointed out by the respondents in respect of the bank guarantee is nothing but an error of judgment on the part of the respondent West Bengal State Electricity Board Authorities. It has been specifically stated on behalf of the petitioner...
Donald and Macarthy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2005(103)ECC88,2005(186)ELT393(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. The Court : This matter was once finally heard and disposed of by His Lordship Mr. Justice Kabir by a detailed judgment and order dated 24th July, 1996 [1997 (89) E.L.T. 53 (Cal.)], whereby and whereunder His Lordship was pleased to direct the Customs authority, amongst other, to pay the demurrage and other dues of the Calcutta Port Trust in respect of the goods in question within 15 days from the date and thereafter to permit the petitioner-company to re-export the goods on payment of export duty, if any. Therefore, it appears that relief prayed for by the writ petitioner was granted. However, Union of India, here the Customs authority, preferred appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order and the Appeal Court by its judgment and order dated 6th January, 1997 set aside the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge and remanded the matter for de novo hearing. Their Lordships in the Appeal Court found that the learned Trial Judge passed orders behind...
Raya Bhattacharjee Vs. the Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT288(HC),[2006(108)FLR820],(2006)IILLJ205Cal
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated August 17, 1998 rejecting her appeal, preferred against the order of the disciplinary authority dated December 27, 1997, imposing the major penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one increment for one year, and directing that she would earn increment of pay during the period of one year, though on expiry of one year the reduction would not have the effect of postponing the future increment of her pay in terms of the relevant rules.2. At. the relevant point of time she was working as an officer in New Bank of India that subsequently merged with the respondent bank (the Punjab National Bank). The proceeding was intiated by charge-sheet dated August 16, 1994 on the following sole article of charge.'On account of laxity on the part of Miss Bhattacharjee in exercising control required on the functioning of the Day Book Department at Bo. Ezra Street. Cal. fraud...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.S. Wardekar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Cal)255,[2006]283ITR432(Cal)
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The instant IT Appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961, against the order passed by the learned Tribunal, Calcutta for the asst. yr. 1989-90 was admitted on 19th Dec., 2000 on the following questions :'(a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case and according to the proper view of the law, the sum of Rs. 1.75 crores received by the assessee for entering into a restrictive covenant of not entering into a competing business with--United Breweries group for a period of five years was receipt by the assessee in the nature of a capital receipt or whether it was a revenue receipt ?(b) Whether in law the said receipt of Rs. 1.75 crores is not capital gain chargeable to capital gains tax but merely capital receipt not chargeable to any tax whether tax or capital gains tax at all ?(c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,95,000 made by the ...
Babul Alias Babul Kar Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT556(HC)
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This revisional application has been filed, praying for quashing of the proceeding being GR Case No. 422 of 1979 arising out of Goghat PS Case No. 23 dated 27.7.1979 under Sections 467/ 468/471/409/120B of the IPC. Case of the petitioner is that he along with two others, since deceased, was falsely implicated in the above mentioned case on the basis of a written complaint made by one Sri Paresh Chandra Kar. In the said complaint, it was stated that one Sri Pramathanath Kar had an account with the Badanganj Sub Post Office Kayapath being Account No. 361809, where he had deposited Rs. 8,000/- and the defacto complainant was made a nominee in respect of the said amount. Pramathanath Kar used to love Paresh Chandra Kar, the defacto complainant, like his son and promised to give him Rs. 8,000/-. Prior to his death, Pramathanath informed the defacto complainant about the said account and requested him that after his death to perform his sradh at Gaya after withdrawin...
Ranjit Kumar Bag, Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-special C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN445
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present case arises out of a reference under Section 395(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code made by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Tamluk, Purba Midnapore.2. The backdrop of the present reference may briefly be sated as follows:On the basis of written information given by the Superintendent of Moyna Group Electric Supply on 27th January, 2004, police authority started a case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, being Sessions Case No. (E) 5(2) 2004. It was alleged that on 21.01.2004, one Netai Maity was found tapping energy dishonestly from incoming terminal point of meter installed by the West Bengal State Electricity Board in the premises of the said person. Police after completion of investigation submitted report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate transferred the said case to the said Learned Court of S...
Bipul Ratan Mitra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ167CAT
1. Shri Bipul Ratan Mitra has questioned the validity of order dated 11.5.2002 and has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the same with a further direction to the respondents to make payment of the balance of amount of Rs. 55860/- of gratuity along with interest at the rate of 10% on the delayed payment of DCRG.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at a great length and have earnestly considered the pleadings and records of this case.3. The indubitable material facts, necessitating filing of this original application, are that the applicant served the respondents department for over a period of 37 years and retired on dated 30.9.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation while holding the post of Chief Booking Supervisor. He was entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,12,0204/- on account of DCRG but the same was not paid to him on the due date. The matter was protested against and it is only on 5.5.2003, a part payment was made to the tune of Rs. 1,56,644. The applicant re...
Monoranjan Jana and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN93
1. Re : An appln. Under Section 439 Cr. P.C. filed on 24.3.05 in connection with Nandigram P.S. Case No. 57 of 1994 under Section 323/436/34 IPC.2. This is an application for bail under Section 439 Cr. PC. FIR was lodged under Section 323/436/34 IPC. On completion of investigation, a final report recommending discharge of the accused persons was submitted by the investigating agency. The learned Magistrate refused to accept such final report and on the basis of a protest petition filed by the complainant, took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused persons. The FIR which was initially lodged, was treated as a complaint. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his witnesses and took cognizance of the offence. The petitioners prayed for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge on 3.5.1994 and the said application was allowed and anticipatory bail was granted on 15.6.1994 in their favour. The final report as aforesaid was submitted thereaft...
Ambica Charan Sinha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN468
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the decisions taken in the meeting held on 25th August, 2004 in presence of the superior officers of the Oil companies in order to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 to finalise the trading area.2. The petitioner herein is the proprietor of M/s. Jangipur Gas Service and was appointed as a distributor by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as IOC) pursuant to the agreement dated April 17, 1986. In the said agreement it has been specifically mentioned that the said M/s. Jangipur Gas Service has been appointed as Distributor in the territory or distribution area of Jangipur.3. Subsequently, Senior Area Manager of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation by the letter dated August 9, 2004 clarified certain points regarding the Indane Distributorship at Janipur in the following manner :1) This distributor initially marketed Indane within the townships of Jangipur and Raghunathganj ...
Ramandas Chaki and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal312
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This appeal comes out of a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs preferred this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 17th February, 1997 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge 1st Court. Krishnanagar, Nadia in Title Appeal No. 142 of (sic) 1986 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Ranaghat in Title suit No. 4 of 1979 on 26th May 1986.2. The case made out by the plaintiffs in the plaint is inter alia as follows :-Khitish Chandra Chaki, predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs was the owner of the suit property. Said Khitish Chandra Chaki had got less than 25 acres of agricultural land. By B. R. Case No. 34 of 1968, Revenue Officer passed an order that 2364 acres of land of Khitish Chandra Chaki to be vested in the State of West Bengal. BR case No. 14 of 1968 is illegal, invalid and without any jurisdiction. Khitish Chandra Chaki and the plaintiffs filed Title Suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »