Kolkata Court June 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.
Sandhya Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN646
S.K. Gupta J.1. This revisional application has been preferred under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC against the order dated 28.12,2004 passed by the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat in C Case No. 446 of 2004.2. The case of the petitioner is that she filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC alleging therein that on 11.05.2004 the O. P. Nos.2-7 along with police of Teheti Police Camp called on Sanat Ghosh and Ramprasad Ghosh and thereafter said Sanat Ghosh was taken away in a matador van. It has been alleged that the O. P. Nos. 2-5 ransacked the home of the defacto complainant and other villagers and destroyed the household articles and outraged modesty of the women. Said Sanat Ghosh and Ramprasad Ghosh did not return and subsequently the petitioner came to know that they were found dead in a field. It has been further contended in the said petition of complaint that the complainant was prevented by the 0. P. Nos. 2-7, with the active assistance of the...
National Textile Corporation (Wbab and O) Limited Unit: Arati Cotton M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN274,(2006)IILLJ315Cal
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The petitioner, a subsidiary company of National Textile Corporation, has challenged the order No. 113 dated 24th March, 2005 passed by the learned Second Industrial Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the company praying to rely on some documents to substantiate their case.2. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Arunabha Ghosh, learned Advocate ably assisted by Mr. Soumya Majumder submitted that when enquiry is decided as a preliminary issue and the same is held to be bad, the employer can prove charges by leading evidence afresh before the Tribunal in support of the charges. Since the Tribunal is hearing the case on merits and the employer has been called upon to prove the charges, the employer can rely on fresh materials. As evident from the order dated 11th February, 2005 the documents sought to be produced are relevant. If the documents are not allowed to be produced, then the hearing on merits before the Tribunal will be an idle formality and denial of just...
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar Mantri and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: [2005]142STC251(Cal)
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 28th August, 2002, Reported as Krishna Kumar Mantri v. ACCT [2004] 138 STC 683 (WBTT), passed by the learned West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' in R.N. Case No. 235 of 2002.2. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows :The respondent, Sri Krishna Kumar Mantri, was served with a notice dated March 11, 2002 directing him to show cause as to why his registration certificate will not be cancelled under Section 26(10) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 on the ground that he had ceased to carry on any business from his recorded place of business at Postabazar. It was stated that during visits to the place of business on different dates by the authority concerned and its representatives, it was found that one Mr. Chandgotia was carrying on business of sarees from the said place. In reply to the said notice dated Mar...
Basudeb Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN5
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. Petitioner being appointed on temporary basis as Sub-Inspector, Food and Supplies under the Government of West Bengal, was transferred to Food Corporation of India where he served till the year 1987. Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Inspector in the year 1983.2. On May 6,1989, petitioner was placed under suspension as he was arrested in connection with a criminal case by the Bishnupur Police Station. Said police case ended in a final report.3. On 30th January, 2001, petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 30th January, 2001 issued by the respondent No. 2 levelling a charge against the petitioner alleging certain lapses during the period from 1968 to 1978. In this connection, petitioner was scheduled to retire on 31st January, 2001 attaining the age of superannuation.4. Petitioner filed a representation dated 6th February, 2001 requesting cancellation of said disciplinary proceeding and release of all retirement benefits as the charges were stale char...
Anjali Pal Vs. Parul Pal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN528
1. This first appeal is at the instance of defendant No. 2 in a suit for partition and is directed against judgment and decree dated 10th July, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st Court, Midnapore in Title Suit No. 163 of 1990 thereby passing a final decree in a suit for partition after accepting the Commissioner's report.2. There is no dispute that in the past a preliminary decree was passed declaring 1/3rd share of each of the three parties to the litigation. Subsequently, Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of effecting partition in accordance with the said preliminary decree. The Commissioner allotted 8 1/2 decimals of land apart from a residential house in favour of the plaintiff, 21 1/2 decimals of land in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 27 decimals of land in favour of defendant No. 2. While making such allotments, the Commissioner assessed the valuation of the building at Rs. 60,000/- and that of a gas godown at a price of Rs. 30,000/-. The valuat...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Engineering Works
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN226
1. Long time has since elapsed after the order appealed against was passed. Mr. Roy is unable to enlighten the Court as to whether pursuant to the order the amount recovered from another bill was refunded or not. However, he submits that he obtained an order of stay in the appeal but whether before the order of stay was passed the amount was refunded or not is not within his knowledge. There is a direction for referring the matter to the arbitration. The question relates to enforcement of terms of contract. We do not think that we can deal with each and every stage of the contract or the performance of its various clauses.2. Mr. Roy, however, draws our attention to one of the provisions of the contract at page 88 of the paper book viz: Clause 8 of the General Terms and Conditions of this contract, where it is stipulated that the Telecommunication Department is entitled to recover such amount from any sum due to the contractor under the same contract or any other contract after exhausti...
Tapas Kumar Raha Vs. P.O., Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR1048],(2005)IIILLJ634Cal
ORDERS.K. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Calcutta. Petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he was appointed by the respondent No. 3 as Traffic Assistant on and from August 2, 1976. But although he was appointed as a Traffic Assistant, the petitioner mainly discharged clerical functions and the respondent No. 3 considered the case of the petitioner under the wage revision from time to time and granted increments. All of a sudden on May 31, 1989 the respondent No. 3 displayed an office note on the board retrenching 28 workmen including the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is the 'Union' of the workmen to which the petitioner also belongs. Over this retrenchment, the respondent No. 2, 'Union' raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement of all those 28 workmen including the petitioner for non-compliance of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industr...
Madura Coats Limited Vs. Dunlop India Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal366
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. This summons has been taken out by the plaintiff for recording final judgment under Chapter XIIIA of the original Side Rules of this Court. This application is arising out of a suit for recovery of the price of diverse quantities and qualities and specifications of dipped yarn, nylon tyre cord, dipped chafers etc. sold, delivered to the defendant. The sale and supply was made prior to 1996 till 1998 and thereafter from April, 2000 to May, 2001. The bills were raised and accepted. No objection was raised. Time to time part payment was made. After adjusting part payment made by the defendant there is due and owing an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,61,54,627.54p. on account of principal and sum of Rs. 2,48,66,609.75p. on account of interest calculated from respective due dates till 28th February, 1998. However, taking into consideration of the sale and supply made during subsequent period between April, 2000 and May, 2001 the dues of the plaintiff rose up to Rs. 7,51,...
Kharibari Tea Company Limited and anr. Vs. West Bengal State Electrici ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN610
Pratap Kr. Ray, J.1. The writ application has been filed by two writ petitioners, one is the Kharibari Tea Company Limited as petitioner No. 1, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of tea plantation, manufacturing and processing of tea and by petitioner No. 2 working for gain as well as Director of said company, petitioner No. 1 in the said organisation. Relief prayed for in this writ application is to this effect:(a) Issue writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and each of them to forthwith cancel and/or quash and/or rescind and/or revoke and/or recall the impugned order as in Annexure T5' and to treat your petitioners' factory at Sachindra Chandra Tea Estate in the district of Darjeeling as a 'new industry' and forthwith grant concession in accordance with Clause (a) of the TOD Tariff in the Tariff and Related Conditions of Supply as in Annexures 'P2 to PP1', to your petitioners at their factory at Sach...
Abn Amro Bank Nv Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-2005
Reported in: (2005)96TTJ(Kol.)1041
1. These 4 appeals of the assessee relating to asst. yrs. 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 involving some common issues are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The appellant is a branch of ABN AMRO Bank NV incorporated in Netherlands, with limited liability having its original office at Singapore. In India, the appellant is registered as a scheduled bank in terms of Schedule II of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act, 1934. The main activities of the appellant in India comprise of accepting deposits, giving loans, discounting/collection of bills, issue of letters of credit/guarantees, executing forward transaction in foreign currencies for importers/exporters, money market lending/borrowings, investment in securities, etc., in terms of the existing rules and regulations governing such transactions. In the years under consideration, the appellant had three branches in India at Mumbai, Kolkata and New Delhi. There is an agreement between India and Netherlands for Avoidance of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »