Kolkata Court August 2005 Judgments

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Durgapur Project Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(4)CHN501

ORDERIndira Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act) for setting aside an award dated March 22, 2005.2. By the impugned award, the sole Arbitrator has awarded to the respondent a sum of Rs. 49,86,990/- along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum for a period of 5 years and 7 months, amounting to Rs. 22,27,500/-. The total value of the award is Rs. 72,14,490/-.3. The Court-fees for this application has been assessed by the Stamp Reporter at a sum of Rs. 1,08,217,35/- under Entry 1(10) of Schedule II of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Court-fees Act) as amended with effect from October 28, 2002, by the West Bengal Court-fees (Amendment) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Amendment Act.)4. The petitioner has disputed the assessment. Since the adjudication of the dispute involves interpreta...

income-tax Officer Vs. Sri Uma Kant Newatia

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Kol.)376

1. This appeal preferred by (he revenue is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CTT(A) dated 29.12.2004 for the asstt. year J 998-99.2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of transportation of oil tankers. The return was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 34,4907-.However, the assessment was completed Under Section 143(3) vide order dated 28.3.2001 at an income of Rs. 5,75,3707- as under:Total Income as per return Rs. 34,490Add: Expenses disallowed(a) Under the head Transportation account Rs. 3,00,000(b) Under the head Tank Lorry Operational Expenses Rs. 2,00,000(c) Under the head Telephone Expenses Rs. 30,882(d) Under the head Travelling Expenses Rs. 10,000 Rs. 5,40,000 Assessed total income : Rs. 5,75.3 72 It has been confirmed by both the parties (hat the assessee did not file any appeal/revision against the above assessment order.Subsequently, the Ld. CIT, on examination of assessment records, found that th...

Subir Kumar Nag Vs. Sk. Mohammad Shahanawaj

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(4)CHN750

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being Order No. 27 dated 7th February, 2005 at the instance of the pre-emptee/petitioner.2. Let me give the short background of the dispute between the parties leading to the filing of this revisional application.3. The pre-emptee/petitioner filed a suit for partition against the pre-emptor/ opposite party in respect of the plot of land which is also the subject-matter of the pre-emption proceeding filed by the opposite party against the petitioner herein. The said suit which was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Midnapur was registered as Title Suit No. 331 of 1999.4. Subsequently, the opposite party/pre-emptor filed an application under sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for exercising his right of pre-emption in respect of the petitioner's purchase of the land before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court at...

Union of India (UOi) and Anr. Vs. the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Cour ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(2)ARBLR447(Cal),(2006)1CALLT21(HC)

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have questioned the decision, of the judge designated by the Chief Justice, dated November 29th, 2004, given in an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and also the consequential order of the acting Chief justice dated February 24th, 2005 appointing the arbitrator.2. The undisputed facts are these. On the terms and conditions of tender No. ASN/3 of 2002-03 certain construction works connected with railway quarters were given to the third respondent on March 17th, 2003. The works were to be completed by December 16th, 2003. Alleging failure to complete the works even after grant of repeated extensions, the petitioners rescinded the contract. Consequently, by a letter dated August 31, 2004 the third respondent called upon the petitioners either to settle its legitimate claims or to refer the case for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause.3. According to clause 64(l)(...

Samarjit Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)1CALLT102(HC)

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The Court: The writ petitioner, a practising advocate of this Court and appearing in person, is aggrieved by the notice dated April 8. 2005 issued by the disciplinary committee of Bar Council of West Bengal. By it the committee notified to the petitioner that it would hold a meeting on April 20, 2005 to enquire into and dispose of Case No. 20 of 2002.2. Facts of the case are these. In a case filed by the fourth respondent under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 the fifth respondent was an opposite party. Feeling aggrieved by an order dated April 10, 2002 made in that case by the executive magistrate, the fifth respondent, engaging the petitioner as his advocate-on-record, took out a criminal revision application before this Court: it was disposed of by Debi Prasad Sengupta, J. on May 7, 2002. The petitioner communicated the gist of the order to the executive magistrate, who, by order dated May 8, 2002, disposed of the case.3. Feeling aggriev...

Samsul Haque Mollick Vs. Cesc Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal73

ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. Grievance of the petitioner is that though he is entitled to get supply of electricity from CESC, it declined to receive his application for supply, since no endorsement was made on it by the owner of the premises. His case is that he has been running a business from a part of the premises, and hence as an occupier of the premises, he is entitled to get supply of electricity in view of provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.2. Advocate for the petitioner contends that CESC is under a statutory obligation to give supply to the petitioner, when he is an occupier of the premises. He says that in a writ petition filed in the past by the owner of the premises, the petitioner was added as a respondent, and a prayer was made therein for an order restraining him from running business from the premises. He argues that the owner of the premises, though is entitled to file a suit for eviction of the petitioner, is not entitled to raise any objection ...

Ruby Khatoon Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

P.K. Samanta and S.P. Talukdar, JJ.1. In presence of the learned advocates for the parties, this appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for disposal along with the application filed by the appellant-petitioner for expeditious disposal of the same.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3.9.2004 passed in the Claim Case No. 300 of 2003 by the Third Court, Workmen's Compensation, West Bengal. By the aforesaid judgment and award compensation has been determined at Rs. 2,95,590 on the death of the husband of the claimant-appellant.3. In this appeal the appellant has only questioned the amount so determined by the Commissioner on the basis of the salary certificate of the deceased as produced by the claimant before him. It appears from the records of this case that the deceased victim was employed as a driver of one Abdul Rashid at the time of his death and driving the vehicle bearing No. WB 03-B 3892 owned by said Abdul Rashid. Before the learned Commission...

Surajit Banerjee and anr. Vs. Baidya Nath Pramanick

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal145

Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. The present appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it is directed against judgment dated 31.7.2001 and the decree thereof passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), 4th Court, Alipore, in the District of 24-Parganas(S). The learned Appellate Court below decreed the suit, reversing the judgment of the Trial Court by which such Court dismissed the suit.2. The plaintiff filed T.S. No. 31/90 alleging, inter alia, that the suit property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff Sanyasi Charan Pramanik who executed and registered a deed of family settlement whereby he created a trust in respect of the suit property. The said original owner with his wife became the joint trustees. It was provided that after their death, the property would vest absolutely upon the three sons of the trustees as provided in the deed of settlement. Mother of the plaintiff died on 17.8.82 and his father died on 10.8.83, After the death of both the trustees, the plaintiff bec...

Bengal Metrograph Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN609

Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. The petitioner company issued chargesheet on the respondent No. 3. Ashok Mukherjee dated 16.12.1992. The inquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer gave his finding in the domestic inquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer in conclusion of the inquiry observed 'from the evidence and the documents filed. I am convinced that Sri Mukherjee is guilty of the charges labelled against him.' A copy of the inquiry report of the Enquiry Officer dated April 8,1993 along with the order of the disciplinary authority are annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'P-2' collectively to the writ petition.2. The workman raised an industrial dispute which ultimately culminated into an order of reference dated December 14th 1993 issued by Labour Department, Government of West Bengal for adjudicating the issues as mentioned therein and it was referred to the learned Second Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.3. Before the learned Tribunal the respondent No. 3, Ashok Mukherjee filed written...

Special Officer [District Inspector of Schools (Se)] Vs. Durgadas Mukh ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(4)CHN1004

Soumitra Pal, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 6th July, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 46(W) of 1995 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order dated 12th April, 1994.2. The relevant facts, in short, are that a complaint pointing out financial and other irregularities was lodged against the authorities of the school. Thereafter, an enquiry was held. It was alleged that as the writ petitioner who is the respondent in this appeal was not inclined to place the documents including the books of accounts. The District Inspector of Schools was directed by the Director of School Education either to visit the school with adequate police force or direct the Headmaster and Secretary of the school to attend the office with all records. Thereafter, pursuant to requisitions some documents were produced. One Gaur Chandra Baidya was appointed as the Administrator of the school. It was alleged that at the time of taking over charge t...