Kolkata Court September 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.
Williamson Magor and Company Limited and Associated Concern Officers' ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: III(2006)ACC444,2006ACJ1431
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against orders dated April 9, 2003 and July 15, 2003,2. It appears that in the appeal an application has been filed by the Williamson Magor & Co. Limited formerly known as Macneill & Magor Ltd. for recalling of the orders passed by the learned Company Judge on April 9, 2003 and July 15, 2003. It is further prayed that a suitable direction be passed by the Court discharging and/or reliving Williamson Magor & Co. Limited (hereinafter referred to as WML) from any liability of payment of pension to the retired officer of Macneill Engineering Limited.3. The facts appears in this matter is that in or about February, 1990 a Scheme of Arrangement (hereinafter referred to as the 'said scheme of 1990') was filed by the company before this Hon'ble Court in C.P. No. 172 of 1990 connected with C.A, No. 28 of 1990 whereby the Material Handling Division and the Electrical Division of William Magor & Co. Limited (hereinafter referred to as WML) were t...
Bharat Coking Coal Limited Vs. Ramesh Prasad Srivastav and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN482
1. This appeal is at the instance of the employer, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent Ramesh Prasad Srivastav was allowed and the punishment awarded to him as a result of the departmental proceedings against him was set aside. By the impugned order, the learned Judge set aside the orders dated 7.7.1991 and 18.6.1992 and directed the appellant to forthwith place the case of the petitioner with appropriate Selection Committee within a period of three months from the date of service of a copy of the order upon the respondent employer. In short, the writ petitioner-respondent was held to be wholly exonerated on the facts and was ordered to be reinstated to his earlier position.2. By way of facts we may state that the original writ petitioner was working with the appellant herein and while so working was served with a charge-sheet dated 17.2.1987. In the chargesheet, three charges were le...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: (2006)101TTJ(Kol.)258
1. The assessee moved the present miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2) against the order passed in ITA No. 1109/Cal/2001 for the asst.yr. 1997-98 by the Tribunal 'E' Bench, Kolkata, vide its order dt. 28th Feb., 2002.2. The contention of the assessee is that the mistakes are in the nature of wrong recording of facts, applicable dates, non-consideration of the relevant evidence produced in the appellate proceedings. Also, on certain issues the order suffers from non-application/not noticing, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of jurisdictional and other High Courts. It is mentioned that in para 2 of the order, the date of notice under Section 142(1) has wrongly been recorded as 24th Aug., 1997, whereas the correct date of notice is 24th Aug., 1998. The order of the AO as well as the CIT(A) correctly records the date as 24th Aug., 1998. However, the Tribunal has committed mistake in recording date as 24th Aug., 1997. Consequently this mistake is apparent on record whi...
Matigara Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(193)ELT132(Cal),2007[7]STR363
ORDER1. In this case, the assessee's undertaking was closed sometimes in 2001. Mr. Khaitan submits that information of such closure was furnished to the Central Excise authorities.2. In relation to the certain proceedings, an adjudication order was passed, which was supposed to be served on the assessee at the address of the closed undertaking. However, subsequently, the copy was served by the assessee on being informed over phone from the office of the authority and within 60 days thereof an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Appeals. But that was rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation since preferred long after 90 days from the date of the alleged service of the order of adjudication on the basis of a postal remark 'Refused' endorsed on the envelop, sent by the Department at the address of the closed undertaking through post. The question arose as to whether the said refusal could be treated to be the service within the meaning of Section 37C of the Central...
United Bank of India Vs. Pijush Kanti Nandy and ors. Overruled
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT181(HC),2006(1)CHN45,[2006(109)FLR172],(2006)IILLJ47Cal
Asit Kumar Bisi, J.1. This appeal preferred by the appellant United Bank of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 490 of 2002.2. The facts leading to tiling of the instant appeal may briefly be narrated thus. The writ petitioner Pijush Kanti Nandy joined the service of the United Bank of India on 14th July, 1971. In view of his failing health on 13th February, 1989 the petitioner applied to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank seeking voluntary retirement after having attained the age of 55 years. While making the said application for voluntary retirement the petitioner gave more than three months' notice to the Bank as required under the rule. The Bank authority favourably considered the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and accepted the same. Accordingly the petitioner retired on 31st May, 1989.3. The age of the petitioner as on 31st May, 1989 was 55 years 21 days. If th...
Avo Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. India Ice Aerated Water and Cold Storage Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN384
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. The appeal is directed against an order dated May 4, 2005 passed by the Hon'ble Company Judge admitting the winding up petition and directed the appellant herein to make the payment at the enhanced rate in the terms of Section 17(4A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It has further been directed that the company would go on making payment at the enhanced rate commencing from June, 2005 and the balance 50% of the arrear would be paid by the company by six equal monthly instalments payable within January, 2006. The petitioner was directed to file certain undertakings as would be evident from the order so passed by the Hon'ble First Court.2. The interesting point has been taken before us by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the company that the company was never served with a notice under Section 20 of the said Act to enhance the rate in question. He further contended that no notice under Section 20...
United Eastern Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. India Ice Aerated Water and Col ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN390
1. The Court: This appeal arises out of an order dated July 12, 2005. 2. Similar question, as involved in this appeal, arose in another appeal being ACO No. 128 of 2005, APO. T.No. 507 of 2005, C.P.No.616 of 2004 (AVO Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. India Ice Aerated Water & Cold Storage Ltd.) to the effect that whether a landlord has a power under Sections 4A, 17(4A) and 17(4B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 to enhance the rent of a tenant without giving a notice under Section 20 of the said Act notwithstanding the fact that he fulfils all the conditions mentioned therein. 3. We have already decided the aforesaid question arose in this appeal in ACO No. 128 of 2005, APO.T.No.507 of 2005, C.P. No. 616 of 2004 (AVO Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. India Ice Aerated Water & Cold Storage Ltd.) by our judgment dated 19th September, 2005 wherein we have held that jurisdiction has been given under Section 17 of the said Act to the Controller. We have also held that the amendment has been mad...
Director of Drugs Control and anr. Vs. Pijush Kanti Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN172
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Directorate of Drugs Control, Government of West Bengal and Dr. Sajal Kr. Roychowdhury challenging the order dated 22nd July, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 1510 of 2005 by a learned Judge of the Writ Court. The Court has heard the Counsel for the parties at length and as such with the consent of parties the appeal is treated on the day's list and both the appeal and the stay petition are disposed of by this judgment.2. By the impugned order the learned Judge of the Writ Court has virtually stayed operation of the order of suspension dated 11th July, 2005 by which the licence, issued in favour of the respondents/writ petitioner, has been suspended. The learned Judge has issued an interim order in terms of prayers 'h' & 'j' of the writ petition. The prayers 'h' & 'j' of the writ petition are as follows:h) A further interim order of injunction restraining the respondents and each of them either by themselves or through their me...
Shipping and Clearing (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Be ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN336
Soumitra Pal, J.1. In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11,8.2003 transferring the dispute from the learned 2nd Industrial Tribunal where there has been a prolonged vacancy to the learned 8th Industrial Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said transfer of the dispute was carried out pursuant to a representation filed by a workman. Since no copy of such representation was furnished to the petitioner and as no hearing was given prior to such transfer, the order is bad in law. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Management of Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in : (1990)IILLJ211SC . 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable on facts as in that case the dispute was transferred from the Industrial Court in Dhanbad to the Industrial Court in Patna. 4. Hear...
Samir Chatterjee Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: 1(2006)CLT443
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed agianst the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 9.2.2001 and 12.2.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court. Howrah in Sessions Trial No. XXIV (1) of 2000 thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for a further period of six months.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 29.7.96 at about 23.00 hours a case was registered with Liluah Police Station on the basis of an information lodged by Santosh Kr. Bhowmick (P.W. 1). In the First Information Report it was alleged that accused Samir Chatterjee and his wife approached P.W. 1 for a tenanted room and accordingly a room with tin shed and split bamboo fencing was let out by P.W. 1 to the accused person at a rental of Rs. 150/- per month. It was further stated in the FIR that for the last few days, a quarrel was go...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »