Kolkata Court November 2006 Judgments

Tyre Corporation of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Zonal Jt. Director General ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(2)CHN64

ORDERNo. 11/135/2003-04/ECA-l December 19, 2005The appeal is rejected because it is grossly time-barred.Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade(Emphasis supplied)4. In my view the order passed is ex facie bad as it does not take into consideration the decision already taken to waive the condition of predeposit of penalty which, it appears, 'also' formed the basis of the order impugned. Further, the question of delay has been dealt with perfunctorily. These two factors had weighed with the respondent and 'Accordingly' order was passed. In my view, it amply demonstrates that there was total non-application of mind.5. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. The order dated 19th December, 2005 is set aside and quashed. The writ petition is, thus, allowed.6. The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 within a fortnight from the dat...

Candlewood Holdings Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1(2007)CLT548

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,66,54,196/- towards arrear rents, hiring charges, municipal taxes and commercial surcharge with interest and Rs. 17,14,142/- towards compensation for damages to furniture and fixtures, interest and other reliefs.2. The miniaturised version of the plaintiff is that the Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, was the owner of fourth floor of premises No. 24, Park Street, Calcutta-16 consisting of two portions having covered areas of 9000 and 1400 sft., as described in schedule 'A' to the plaint. By an agreement for lease dated 27.08.84 the said Corporation leased out 9000 sft. to United Industrial Bank Ltd. for a period of fifteen years from 01.09.84 at a monthly rental of Rs. 81,000/- on condition that after completion of every five years the rent would be increased by at least ten per cent and that lessee would bear and pay to the lessor the occupier's share of the municipal rates a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Raj Finoxides Private Ltd., a Compa ...

Court: Kolkata

1. The Court : This reference application has been admitted on the following grounds:Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 beyond the scope of the proviso to the said section namely if paid beyond the period stipulated therein?2. Mr. Mukherjee appearing in support of the application tried to contend that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. on the contrary, it has been it has by Mr. Dutt before us that such question has already been decided by several Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India find the following decisions are cited:1. 2003(161) ELT 285 (Tri.-Bang.) (Pashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex. Visakhapatnam.)2. 2000(38) RLT 619(SC) (V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of (Income Tax)3. 2005(190) ELT 11 (Bom.) (Commissioner of Central Excise-I v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd.)4. 2005(67) RLT 157 (Mad.) (CCE, Madras v....

Arya Bhander (P) Limited and anr. Vs. Director General of Foreign Trad ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(1)CHN570

Soumitra Pal, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, a private limited company, engaged in the business of import and export, was served with a show-cause notice alleging non-fulfilment of export obligations. The petitioner by letter dated 15th February, 2005 prayed for time to submit formal reply and sought an opportunity to be heard in person. Thereafter, on 4th March, 2005 had replied to the notice to show cause and prayed for personal hearing. However, on 27th April, 2005 the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade passed the order. Hence, the writ petition.2. Earlier the writ petition came up for hearing on 9th August, 2005 when the following order was passed:To enable the Advocate for the respondent to obtain instruction why the impugned order dated April 27th, 2004 should not be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and why the authority concerned should not be directed to give fresh decision in the matter after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner...

New Tea Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. National Highways Authority of India ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2007Cal60

Bhaskar Bhattacharya , J.1. This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of a writ-petitioner and is directed against order dated 15th September, 2006, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in the Writ Petition No. 1589 (W) of 2006, thereby vacating the interim order earlier granted by His Lordship.2. The appellant before us filed the aforesaid writ-application thereby praying for quashing the demand of the respondent contained in a letter dated 28th April, 2006 for relinquishing possession of the acquired land, being Annexure P-12 to the writ-application and for restraining the respondents from erecting or installing any Toll-Plaza within the area of Matidhar Tea Estate belonging to the writ petitioner and from interfering with the possession of the writ-petitioner in the said tea-estate. The writ-petitioner further prayed for cancellation of the notifications dated 27th May, 2005 and 22nd November, 2005 issued under the National Highways Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) s...

Susarma Mukherjee Alias Adhikary and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1(2007)CLT676

Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned advocates of the respective parties. By consent of both the parties, the matters being C.R.R. 3243 of 2006 and C.R.R. 3244 of 2006 are taken up for hearing together.2. The two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are directed against the proceeding under Section 144(2) Cr.P.C. being M.F. Case No. 1687 of 2006, pending before the learned Executive Magistrate, Diamond Harbour, District-South 24 Parganas and particularly, in respect of two orders being orders dated 30th August, 2006 and 1st September, 2006 respectively passed by the learned Magistrate in the said proceeding.3. For the sake of convenience, the two orders being orders dated 30.8.06 and 01.09.06 and 01.09.06 are set out hereinbelow:Order dated 30.8.06:Heard petitioner.To O/C M/Bazar P.S./B.L. & L.R.O. M/Bazar to cause enquiry and report by 29.11.06 O.Ps. to be informed by notice and S.R. of notice is to be submitted along with the report. O/C. to (1) pea...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Krishna Biswas

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008ACJ480,AIR2007Cal122

Pratap Kr. Ray, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. This appeal has been preferred by the National Insurance Company assailing the award dated 22nd August, 2003 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Siliguri in M.A.C.C. No. 169 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as filed by the claimant was allowed directing National Insurance Company Limited to pay the compensation amount as awarded.3. Two legal questions have been urged in this appeal by the National Insurance Company Limited, namely:(i) Whether under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the said Act for brevity, a Court of law can saddle the Insurance Company with a liability to pay when under the said statute, owner, is only liable.(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company when there is a case of death of owner injured in the Motor accident.4...

Padma Rani Thakur Vs. Secretary, Department of Home and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)1CALLT589(HC),2007(1)CHN351

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ petitioner and is directed against an order dated 21st November, 2002, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant. By the said writ application, the appellant prayed for a direction upon the State Government to pay compensation of Rs. 35 lakh to the appellant for the death of her son in the police custody due to torture inflicted upon him by the police officials.2. The case made out by the appellant in the writ application may be summed up thus:a) On 26th February, 1980, the son of the appellant was arrested by the police and was taken to the Golabari police station where he was mercilessly beaten and due to such brutal atrocity, he died. The police refused to accept even the written complaint of the husband of the appellant, as a result, such grievance was lodged before the S.D.J.M., Howrah.b) The learned S.D.J.M. to...

Smt. Fulmani Hemram Alias Hembram and anr. Vs. the Divisional Manager, ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007ACJ2521,(2007)1CALLT648(HC)

Arunabha Basu, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. The appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act is filed assailing the Judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Uttar Dinajpur in connection with M.A.C. Case No. 206 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal below decided an application for compensation filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act, by the legal heirs of the deceased and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation.3. The short question that is raised in the appeal is that the learned Tribunal below failed to consider the scope of the application filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act and also failed to consider the monthly income of the deceased as given in evidence and also did not, consider that in a case Under Section 163A of the M.V. Act the minimum that is to be considered as monthly income is the notional income in case of non-earning persons. So far as the present case is concerned in the applicatio...

Md. Aslam and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(1)CHN414

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. I have gone through the draft judgment prepared by my learned Brother. I agree with His Lordship's findings and ordering portion. However, I feel it expedient to express my own assessment of the matter. On hearing the learned Counsels for the parties the factual aspect has been dealt with by my learned Brother exhaustively but with reasonable degree of brevity.2. The learned Counsel Mr. Soumen Dasgupta while attacking the judgement and decree passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge submits that the learned Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction as he relegated himself to the position of the surveyor and valuer without having any foundation or basis on the one hand and on the other hand almost ignoring the valuation made by the third party expert valuer. He has fallen in error in taking note of the evidence adduced on behalf of the Collector which has got no value as being hearsay evidence. Having regard to the location facility and amenities available on t...