Kolkata Court March 2006 Judgments

Mrityunjoy Sadhukhan Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1(2007)CLT643

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), Nadia in E.C. Case No. 9/88 (T.R. No. 20/88) on 17.05.88.2. Shortly put, the prosecution case is that on 21.03.88 between 13.00 hrs. and 14.00 hrs. during visit of the pulse-shop of the accused Gachabazar, Nakashipara by S.I. Manik Lal Nandan, DEO, Nakashipara (P.W. 4) with other DEB Officials, the accused/appellant was found dealing in pulses of more than 10 quintals. No stock-cum-rate board was displayed at the place of business nor the accused/appellant, on demand, could produce licence and other documents, for which different items of pulses were seized and the accused/appellant was arrested for violation of the provisions of para 3(1) of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil (Dealer's Licensing) Order, 1978 and para 3(2) of the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodit...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bridge and Roof Company (i) Limited

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR428(Cal),2006(2)CHN263

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by Union of India which is represented by Executive Engineer, Postal Civil Division - II, challenging a judgment and order dated 6th May, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. By the said judgment the learned Single Judge dismissed the application, filed by the appellant, for setting aside an award. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent is a Class-I Contractor, engaged in various constructional work and pursuant to a tender process floated by the appellant the respondents submitted its offer for execution of a construction work comprising of office building for Postmaster General, West Bengal Circle, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata. Ultimately the respondent was entrusted with the work. A formal agreement was executed between the parties. In the course of execution of work some disputes and differences arose between the parties calling and they were referred to arbitration. The said contract contained ...

Numazar Dorab Mehta and ors. Vs. the Assam Company Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal204

ORDERSengupta, J.1. The plaintiffs have taken out this application to withdraw the instant suit. In prayer (a) leave is sought for to withdraw the suit simplicitor on such terms as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.2. Mr. Mitra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants upon instruction submits: that his clients are pressing for the relief in terms of prayer (c), namely, leave be given under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the instant suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of the instant suit, therefore, the issue in this application shall be confined to the provision of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Mitra on merits submits that on the advice of the legal expert the present suit cannot be maintained in its form. The instant suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant on the ground of the expiry of lease in respect of the premises in question by efflux of time. An applicatio...

Smt. Lakshmi Biswas Vs. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2007Cal172

ORDERPratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. In the instant case the petitioner, the applicant of a claim case arose out of motor accident whereby her son faced death has assailed the order dated 10th March, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 6th Court at Alipore having determination to adjudicate the Motor Accident Claim Case sitting as a Tribunal in MAC Case No. 50 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the application praying for withdrawal of the claim case with liberty to sue afresh was rejected save and except the order allowing to withdraw the suit. This order is under challenge herein on the ground that there is a total perversity of the findings of the learned Court below in view of the fact that when the Court himself has considered that there was a defect in quoting the bus number of the offending vehicle owned by the opposite party, the Calcutta Tramways Company, the learned Court below ought to...

Hardwari Mall and Sons Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Aniruddha Bose J.1. The subject of challenge in the present writ petition is seizure of certain goods and consequent imposition of penalty upon the petitioner under the provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (described henceforth as 'the said Act'). The petitioner, a partnership-firm, is a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is the petitioner's case that a Mumbai based firm, Pioneer Sales, had despatched to the petitioner as its agent little over ten thousand kilograms of poppy seeds for sale on commission basis. These poppy seeds were originally imported from Turkey, as pleaded by the petitioner. The penalty was initially imposed upon seizure of the said goods, on allegation of violation of the provisions of Sections 68 and 73 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The default of the petitioner was in their failure to produce a valid way bill, as stipulated in Rule 212(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax...

Nilu Singh, Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(2)CHN455

Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th September, 1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, VI Bench, of the City Civil & Sessions Court, at Calcutta in S.C. No. 9 of 1997, S.T. No. 1 of February, 1998, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. They were also convicted under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2. The epitome of the prosecution case is that on 13th November. 1996 at about 10.30 p.m. the de facto complainant, Santoshi Shaw went near Lal Mandir, at Jyotindra Mohan Avenue carrying food to feed her husband, she met her husband and after serving dinner while she was returning home at about 11 p.m. on the wa...

Lakshmi Kanta Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)2CALLT179(HC)

A.K. Bhattacharya, J.1. present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court (E.G. Act), Hooghly, in Special Court Case No.70/ 1989 arising out of Dadpur P.S. Case No.44 dated 23.09.1989 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as amended.2. Shortly put, the prosecution case is that on 23.09.89 S.I. M. Rahaman (P.W. 1) under the supervision of Inspector A.K. Bhowmick and other DEB Officials of Hooghly had been to the Kerosene oil shop of accused/appellant Lakshmi Kanta Ghosh, and after service of notice upon him the accused/appellant produced books of accounts, sale register, stock register, cash memo book, Stock-cum-rate board, license etc. On checking the books of accounts/registers opening balance was found 4400 litres, whereas on physical verification 4600 litres of kerosene oil was found in 23 drums/barrels, and 5400 litres was shown on the Stock-cum-rate board. As the accused/appel...

Chandra Mohan Sur and ors. Vs. Mohit Lal Seal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)CHN316

Tapen Sen, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1990 passed by Sri S.C. Dutta, City Civil Court (13th Bench) Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1779 of 1981 whereby and whereunder he was pleased to hold that the suit was not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the same.2. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein filed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. Their case, as built up before the Court below as well as before this Court was that one R.N. Sur and one N.C. Biswas were tenants under one Manoharlal Seal in respect of room No. 22 on the ground floor of premises No. 167 situated on Lenin Sarani (formerly known as Dharmatala Street) Calcutta, on a rental @ Rs. 22/- per month plus Corporation surchages @ Rs. 21- per month.3. R.N. Sur and N.C. Biswas carried on business of tailoring, bedding and general order supplying in partnership between themselves under the name and style of 'R.N. Sur & N.C. Biswas.' It was stated that rent rec...

Rajendra Singh Lodha and Etc. Vs. the Institute of Chartered Accountan ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal223

ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The three petitioners in these three writ petitions have raised a common question of law regarding interpretation of a provision of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, Regulation 12(4), which is : '(4) Every complaint, other than a complaint made by or on behalf of the Central or any State Government, shall be accompanied by a deposit of one hundred rupees which will be forfeited if the Council, after considering the complaint, comes to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out and moreover that the complaint is either a frivolous one or is made with mala fide intention.2. Three complaints were made against the petitioners under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. On August 16, 2005 they were registered by the institute. It then took steps to serve copies thereof in terms of provisions of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988, Regulation 12(6). The petitioners received the copies on August 27, 2005. They were given...

Dilip Kumar Sen Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN843

Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Sri Dilip Kr. Sen has preferred this review application along with a separate application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being CAN No. 1101 of 2006. We have taken up both the applications together for disposal after hearing the parties for the sake of convenience and brevity2. The applicant through the review application has prayed for reconsideration of the order dated 21st September, 2004 and since there was delay in preferring the review application, the applicant has also filed the CAN application.3. After considering the averments of the CAN application and after hearing both the sides, we are inclined to condone the delay in preferring the review application and hence, the CAN application is allowed.4. In the review application, the applicant has contended that for no fault of his own, he has been deprived of his retiring benefits as his application for change from CPF scheme to death-cum-retirement benefit scheme was refused on the ground of de...