Kolkata Court January 2006 Judgments

Raymond Ltd. (Jkft Division) Vs. H.V. Doshi and Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(1)CHN578

P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short the Code) is aimed at quashing the proceeding of complaint case No. C-1024 of 2003 under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) now pending before the learned 12* Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and for setting aside the orders dated 8.12.03 and 17.1.04 passed by the learned Magistrate thereby taking cognizance of offence and issuing process against the petitioner.2. The aforesaid complaint Case being Case No. C-1024 of 2003 was initiated on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party (in short O.P.) namely M/ s. H.V. Doshi and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. The gist of the complaint may be summarised as follows.3. The accused No. 1 company incorporated under the Companies Act is engaged in manufacturing various products including manufacture of engineering files and tools and also marketing such products. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are all working for gain in their respect...

Subir Kumar Basu Vs. State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(2)CHN326

P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the petitioner aiming at quashing the criminal proceeding being Case No. 4 of 1985 now pending in the Court of the learned Judge, 5th Special Court, Calcutta under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and for setting aside the order dated 30.7.1985 passed by the said learned Judge taking cognizance of offence.2. Mr. Ashim Kumar Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid case arose out of Park Street Police Station (in short P.S.) Case No. 126 dated 5.3.1981 under Section 420/120B of the IPC. After registration of the said case, a search and seizure was conducted by Calcutta Police on 6.3.1981 at the office premises of Central Group and police officers seized number of documents. The petitioner moved this Court in writ jurisdiction for quashing the criminal investigation and Tarun Kumar Basu, J. was p...

Kamal Krishna Sardar Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(2)CHN592

S.P. Talukdar, J.1. Grievances of the petitioner in this case arising out of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows:The petitioner is the stockist in respect of Mid-day Meal and SGRY rice of Kultali Block and has been carrying on the said business by distributing foodgrains to the distributing agents. On 12.11.2005 a written complaint was made by the Block Development Officer, Kultali which was addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of the Kultali Police Station. Request was made for treating the said complaint as First Information Report.2. On the basis of the said complaint a criminal case, being Kultali P.S. Case No. 134 of 2005 dated 12.11.2005 under Section 409/34 of Indian Penal Code corresponding to B.G.R. Case No. 4074 of 2005, was started. Allegations made in the said petition of complaint do not constitute any offence under Section 409 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There is ...

Rabindra Kumar Shaw and ors. Vs. Tanusree Chatterjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN82

Bhaskar Bhattacharya and P.N. Sinha, JJ.1. The learned Advocate for the appellants is permitted to strike out the additional signatures appearing in the vokalatnama.2. This second miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of third parties in proceeding under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure and this appeal is preferred against a judgment of affirmance.3. The decree holder instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No. 189 of 1972 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against his tenant one Dalsingar Singh. Such suit ended in a decree in favour of the plaintiff-landlord. On an appeal preferred by the tenants such decree was affirmed up to this Court. Subsequently, the landlord instituted execution case for getting possession of the property from the tenants thereby giving rise to Ejectment Execution Case No. 160 of 1989 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta which was renumbered as Ejectment Execution Case No. 130 of 2002 after transfer of the said proceedings to ...

Pranab Sengupta Vs. Alok Kumar Basu and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1601

ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The aforesaid contempt application (C.R. No. 20509 (W) of 1996) has arisen in connection with an order dated 18th April, 1994 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee (as His Lordship then was). The operative portion of the said judgment and order non-compliance of which is alleged, is set out hereunder:Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition by directing all the respondents particularly respondent No. 2, the Director of School Education (Primary Branch) West Bengal, Bikash Bhavan, Salt Lake, Kolkata to grant approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner from the date of his appointment forthwith, preferably within one month from the date of communication of this order and further, to release the consequential benefits as admissible to him in accordance with law including the arrear salary, allowance within the period of six months from the date. 2. This or...

Sarkar and Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal149,(2006)3CALLT342(HC)

ORDERSengupta, J.1. This execution application has been taken out by the deemed decree-holder. Mr. Roychoudhury appearing for the judgment-debtor has raised a preliminary question as to the maintainability and/or continuation of the execution application for the following facts which are admitted.2. The learned sole Arbitrator made and published an Award on 24th April, 2004. Application under Section 34 to impugn the Award within the parameter of the aforesaid section was made on 7/8th July, 2004.3. The application for setting aside of the Award, as above, was dismissed for default on 14th June, 2005. However, no application was made for restoration nor any order was passed for restoration until 8th August, 2005. During this period there has been no application for restoration nor any order of restoration was passed, but the present execution application has been levied on 22nd June, 2005, and from time to time, namely, on 7th July, 2005, 14th July, 2005 and 21st July, 2005 this execut...

Sri Dhananjoy Pradhan Vs. the Chairman, Egra Municipality and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)2CALLT611(HC)

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. These writ applications were originally moved praying the following reliefs:(a) a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to issue an interview letter in favour of the petitioner to the post of Work Sarkar, Group-C, Egra Municipality, Post Office: Egra, District : Midnapore which will be held on 1lth November, 2001 or any subsequent date in the office of the Municipality.(b) a writ of the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to produce or cause to be produce all relevant documents in connection with the case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court so that the conscionable justice may be done to the petitioner.(c) Rule NISI in terms of the prayer (a & b] above.(d) to issue an order injunction restraining the respondents Nos. 1 & 4 not to hold any interview to the post of Work Sarkar, Group-C, Egra Municipality, Midnapore on 11th November, 2001 or any subsequent date without issuing interview letter in favour of the petitioner t...

imr Metallurgical Resources Ag Vs. Hindusthan Newsprint Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

ORDERSengupta, J.1. Both these applications being GA No. 72 of 2006 and GA No. 67 of 2006 are taken up for hearing. The application being GA No. 72 of 2006 has been taken out by the defendant No. 1 for dismissal of the suit, alternatively the plaint in C. S. No. 293 of 2005 be taken off the file or in the alternative, the plaint in C. S. No. 293 of 2005 be forthwith returned for filing in the appropriate Court. Another application being GA No. 67 of 2006 has been taken out by the plaintiff for interlocutory reliefs, which are set out hereunder :(a) The respondent be directed to nominate a surveyor mutually agreed by the plaintiff for the purpose of sampling and analysis of the cargo being the subject-matter of Purchase Order No. 990083, dated 26th July, 2005 presently lying at the factory premises of the respondent at Newsprint Nagar, Kottayam, Kerala.(b) If necessary, a fit and proper person and/or agency be appointed as surveyor by this Hon'ble Court for the purpose of carrying out s...

Subratra Rudra and 5 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)3STR388

1. Shri Subrata Rudra and five others, all working in the various offices of the respondent organization, have filed this O.A.challenging the transfer order dated 22.6.2005 (Annexure-J). They have challenged the said impugned order of transfer on the ground that as per existing provisions of transfer in the respondent organization, transfer of all employees in Group 'C' is made only on promotion or on own volition or on mutual basis. But in the instant case, the respondents have violated the policy of the organization. They further alleged that the transfer order has been made by way of punishment and for setting up of a service union in the respondent organization by the applicants. Further that, the impugned order has been issued in utter violation of the recommendation made by the 5th CPC in paras 25.17 and 25.19 in respect of transfer of Group 'C' employee where it is clearly stated that any transfer from one station to another station should normally be resorted only to adjust su...

Arun Kumar Dutta Vs. Sankar Kumar Dutta and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(2)CHN301

Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th May, 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Probate Suit No. 15/1984 thereby allowing the probate suit and granting probate in favour of the respondent propounders of the Will of late Prasanta Kumar Dutta.2. The respondents as propounders filed the abovestated suit for grant of probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act and also as executors of the Will and testament executed by their uncle Prasanta Kumar Dutta (since deceased) on 23.2.81. In their application for grant of probate which was converted into a suit it was disclosed by them that the testator Prasanta Kumar Dutta was full blood brother of their father late Anil Kumar Dutta of 43, Dharmatala Lane, Bhadrakali within P.S. Uttarpara. The testator made the said Will on 23.2.81 in favour of the two propounders and their brothers namely, Sekhar Kumar Dutta, Asis Kumar Dutta and Paramesh D...