Kolkata Court March 2006 Judgments

Sayed Ali Sk. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)CHN327

Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This revisional application has been field under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Cr. P.C. against the order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Kalna in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2004 whereby he confirmed the Order No. 10 dated 30.07.2004 passed by the ld. SDJM, Kalna in G.R. Case No. 442 of 2003. Case of the petitioner is that he is an unemployed youth and a scheme was approved in his favour by the Government of West Bengal for opening one Atachaki Centre. For that purpose the petitioner applied for new electric connection to the W.B.S.E.B. The Station Superintendent, Nandan Ghat Group Electric Supply directed the petitioner to deposit quotation amount in the office which the petitioner complied on 18.02.1998. But in spite of that the W.B.S.E.B. did not take any step for supply of the electric connection at the petitioner's premises to run the said business of Atachaki. Finding no other way out,...

Sanjib Saha Vs. Smt. Bidisha Saha (Nee Roy)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal214,2007(2)CHN681

ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Both the matters are taken up for hearing as application being GA No. 3152 of 2005 is off-shoot of the original proceedings being AGWA No. 3 of 2005. The parties hereto were husband and wife at one point of time. They were married on 26th April, 1993. There has been no issue, except a girl child Shrabasti Saha of their above marriage. However, the marriage did not survive for long and it ended with a decree of dissolution dated 10th March, 2003 on their joint petition filed on 2nd September, 2002. In the joint petition there were various terms and conditions, apart from mutual intention to severe their marriage tie. The above order for dissolution of marriage was passed under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, by the learned Additional District Judge at Barasat accepting their terms and conditions mentioned in their joint petition. The parties thereto and herein, agreed as far as custody and maintenance of the said girl child who is now 8 yea...

Amar Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. Prasenjit Kumar Bose and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)3CALLT449(HC),2006(4)CHN719

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing arises from an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the Judgment and order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Track Court No. III, Barrackpore in Criminal Appeal No. 30/03 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court. Barrackpore in C. Case No. 799/96 under Section 420 IPC on 29.11.2003.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that the present O.P. No. 1 lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC alleging inter alia that the petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of a property at Sastri Road, P.S. Naihati executed a registered sale deed on 02.02.87 in favour of O.P. No. 1 at a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Later it was detected that the petitioner was not owner of the said property as his father executed a Will without giving any property to him but to his wife...

Sat Paul Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

P.N. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) and also under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short P.C. Act), 1947 passed by the learned Judge, 24-Parganas (South), 1st Special Court, Alipore in Special Court Case No. 8 of 1987 thereby sentencing the accused appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000A in default rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 161 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for nine months for the offence under Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act. 1947. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal.2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of written complaint/FIR made by Prasa...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this writ application the petitioner has basically challenged the action of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-2 (respondent Learned Counsel 1), purported to be under Section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After having heard Dr. Pal and learned Counsel for the respondent it appears to me that the scope of the enquiry in the writ petition is restricted to whether the way action taken by respondent No. 1 is permissible within the scope and purview of Section 154 of the said Act or not.2. The notice issued under the aforesaid section is based on the following grounds as indicated in the impugned notice :In this case the 'a' Co., claimed depreciation allowance of Rs. 38.09 lakhs for the period from January 1, 1993 to March 31, 1993, for the fixed assets of Messrs. Tea Estates of India Limited and the same was allowed. Moreover, Messrs. Tea Estates of India Limited claimed depreciation of Rs. 2,30,90,740 for April 1, 1992 to December 31,...

Mondira Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Kanan Kumar Maity and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)CHN146

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two appeals were heard analogously as these are preferred against a common judgment dated 27th February, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, District - North 24-Parganas by which two different suits being Title Suit No. 1 of 1998 and Title Suit No. 2 of 1998 were decreed.2. Title Suit No. 1 of 1998 was originally numbered as Title Suit No. 1 of 1991 and was filed in the Court of District Judge, Alipore by six persons as plaintiffs against four named defendants. Out of the four defendants, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Abhijit Roy Chowdhury and Subhajit Roy Chowdhury were described as Sebaits while the present appellants, the purchaser from the parents of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, was made defendant No.3 and the defendant No. 4 was a director of the defendant No. 3. The said suit was filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby praying for declaration that the premises Nos. 121 and 121/1. Kashi Nath ...

Subir Guha Thakurta Vs. Johnson and Johnson Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN459,[2006(110)FLR606],(2006)3LLJ408Cal

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is arising out of an order dated January 6, 2005, whereby the Hon'ble First Court was pleased to set aside the order and/or judgment passed by the learned Tribunal.2. Facts of the case briefly are as follows:Appellant was appointed by the respondent-company as a Medical Service Representative (hereinafter referred to as MSR) on probation at a monthly salary of Rs. 250/-. On June 27, 1973. Such appointment was confirmed by the company (respondent No. 1) and subsequent thereto appellant was promoted as Field Sales Officer on or about December 24, 1981 and thereafter on January 1, 1986 promoted to the post of Sales Trainee Officer. On or about January 1, 1988 he was promoted to the post of District Manager in the Junior Management Staff Cadre. Subsequent thereto, he was promoted to the post of Zonal Manager with effect from October 1, 1990. It further appears that on April 1, 1994 respondent by virtue of a Scheme of Amalgamation sanctioned by the Bom...

Anup Kumar Biswas Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ48CAT

1. Shri Arup Kr. Biswas, Radiographer, Metal and Steel Factory, lchhapore, has filed this O.A. assailing the impugned order of penalty dt. 10.9.99 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the impugned order dt. 16.8.2000 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.2. The applicant has challenged the said impugned orders on the ground that the departmental enquiry was held in complete violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer failed to supply him copies of the statement of the witnesses who were likely to be examined in course of the proposed enquiry and those who had appeared at the preliminary enquiry before the Board of Enquiry; secondly, that the applicant was not supplied with the report of the preliminary enquiry although the Disciplinary Authority heavily relied upon the said preliminary enquiry report in dissenting with the findings of the Enquiry Officer; thirdly, that the Disciplinary A...

Madan Mohan Bar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ119CAT

1. Sri Madan Mohan Bar, Ex-Driver-A of Kharagpur Division of S.E. Rly, has filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs: (a) An order directing and quashing the disciplinary proceedings started by the Disciplinary Authority as it is totally in violation of the Statutory Rules and of the principles of natural justice; (b) An order quashing the incomplete enquiry report of the biased Enquiry Officer who has concluded the enquiry in violation of the statutory rules as stated in Paragraph 4 and in violation of the principles of natural justice and of the principles of the reasonable opportunities; (c) An order quashing the removal order of the Disciplinary Authority passed on the basis of incomplete enquiry report of the biased Enquiry Officer when his letter/representation dated 7.9.95 was pending before the authority and when his letter dated 4.10.95 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority was pending before him for his consideration which was written by him in reply to this letter dat...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)5VST92(NULL)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this matter the first petitioner in effect wants the following relief: a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the State Government to perform their solemn promise/assurance contained in the resolution dated May 27, 1994 and to grant assistance to the company under the said scheme from the period of July, 1995 to 1997 along with the interest at the rate of 7.1 per cent. Of course, formal relief for declaration has been sought for to the effect that the Clauses 3 and 5 of the resolution bearing No. 2027 FT May 231 FT and the retrospective effect sought to be given from April 1, 1994 are null and void and of no effect. Pursuant to the Finance Minister's Budget speech, on March 27, 1994 the Government of West Bengal launched a scheme by its resolution bearing No. 1460 FT dated May 27, 1994 for granting industrial promotional assistance by way of refund of 90 per cent of sales tax already paid for production. The said scheme was said to remain in force fo...