Kolkata Court March 2006 Judgments

Ram Chandra Prasad Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2007Cal169

ORDERPratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Heard the petitioner who is appearing in person.2. This writ application was filed by the petitioner praying the following reliefs:(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding and/or directing the respondent No. 3 and/or respondents and each of them and their servants and/or agents to forthwith make over payment of all long outstanding fee bills of the petitioner with interest and costs;(b) A writ in the nature of prohibition commanding the respondents and/or their servants prohibiting themselves from giving any effect to the said impugned letter 11-12-1997 in respect of all final bills of Advocate in the Arbitration case Dilip Kumar Dutta v. F.C.I. sanctioning Rs. 9956-00 only in place of Rs. 40,459-50 in respect of fee and cost bills;(d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) (b) and (c) above;(c) Order for payment of interest the costs of Litigation expenses;(f) Such further relief and/or reliefs;3. It is the submission of the petitioner who is the...

Usha Rani Kundu Vs. Agradut Sangha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)3CALLT139(HC),2006(3)CHN77

Maharaj Sinha, J.1. Normally, a learned Single Judge exercises the revisional jurisdiction both under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also under Article 227 of the Constitution to decide on merits all applications under such jurisdiction.2. In the present case, however, in dealing with the merits of the above revisional application the learned Judge found that the point that arose for his Lordship's consideration was a point where there was no direct authority or judicial pronouncement of this Court. In the words of the learned Judge, 'The point as to whether an unregistered society or an unregistered club can acquire and hold properties movable as well as immovable is a point which has not been dealt with and decided in a direct way be this Court.As it will appenr ...the point is not at all free from controversies'.3. On the above basis, after having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the decided authorities on the subject, the lear...

Bhagaram Shaw Vs. Nihar Bala Manna and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)3CALLT7(HC),2006(4)CHN663

Maharaj Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and decree of the learned Judge, 13th Bench of the City Civil Court, at Calcutta, dated 29th August, 2001 passed in title suit No. 1531 of 1989. The learned Judge alter the trial of the above suit held pat the plaintiffs in the said suit, namely the respondents herein, were legally entitled to get the decree for eviction against the defendant, namely the appellant herein from the suit premises and as such' decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents by directing the appellant to vacate the suit premises within a specified time failing which the plaintiffs/respondents were 'entitled to have the decree executed'.2. The case of the original plaintiff, Prafulla Manna, since deceased, namely the late husband of the first respondent in this appeal and the father of the second, third, fourth, fifth and the sixth respondents herein, was that he became the owner of the holding No. B/162/1/H/32, Bipin Bihari Ganguly Street. ...

Santosh Parua and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN252

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The present revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC is directed, against the order dated 23.03.94 passed by the ld. SDJM, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas in G.R. Case No. 430/90 arising out of Pathar Pratima P.S. Case No. 15/90 under Sections 302/201 IPC.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that on the basis of a complaint that on 16.04.90 at about 2.00 hrs. Bhabani Parua, wife of present petitioner No. 1 was missing from her matrimonial home and subsequently her deadbody was found on 17.04.90 at about 8.40 hrs. floating in the adjoining pond in decomposed condition with throat-cut injury, Pathar Pratima P.S. Case No. 15/90 under Sections 302/201 IPC was started. Petitioner No. 1 on being arrested was produced on 20.04.90 while petitioner No. 2 surrendered before the ld. Court below on 24.04.90. After completion of investigation chargesheet being No. 50 dated 26.09.93 was submitted against the petitioner...

Ushanil Mercantile Private Ltd. Vs. Uco Bank

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: I(2007)BC209,2006(4)CHN839

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The writ petitioner, in the present case, is the borrower. The respondent Bank is the lender. The respondent Bank obtained a certificate for a sum of Its. 22,27,416.38p. against the writ petitioner from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The certificate was issued on September 24, 1997. Subsequently, a settlement camp was held where the parties to this writ petition amicably settled that a consolidated sum of Rs. 16,77,000/- would be payable by the writ petitioner to the respondent Bank within September 30, 2002. On the basis of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, the recovery proceedings were stayed. The writ petitioner, it appears, could not pay the settled amount within the stipulated time. There has. thereafter, been further negotiations between the parties taking into consideration the interest for the delay in payment of the settled amount. Parties agreed that a sum of Rs. 22,73,000/- shall be payable instead of the sum of Rs. 16,77,000/-...

Commr. of Cus. (Prev.) Vs. Suresh Kumar Nyollywalla

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(204)ELT525(Cal)

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is at the instance of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal and is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 2003 passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata in Appeal No. CSM 147 of 2003 thereby setting aside the order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakh upon the Messers Planters Airways Limited and that of Rs. 15,000/- upon Shri Suresh Kumar Nyollywalla under the provision of Section 112(b) of the Act.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus :(a) The Director of Revenue Intelligence intercepted one truck belonging to a transport company named M/s. Planters Airways Limited when the same was on its way from Siliguri to Guahati and it was found to be loaded with some packages containing goods of foreign origin of miscellaneous nature, such...

Universal Bearing Agency Vs. Wpil Limited

Court: Kolkata

ORDER1. This appeal is against the order dated 31.1.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C. A. No. 756 of 2004 arising out of C. P. No. 651 of 2001 whereby and whereunder he was pleased to direct that if the appellants have any further claim in respect of interest then they would be at liberty to take steps before the appropriate forum.2. In order to appreciate the arguments, it will be necessary to advert, very briefly, to the facts which are involved in this case. It appears that the appellants herein filed a winding up petition alleging that the respondent company was indebted to them to the extent of Rs. 14,81,239.20/- on account of the balance price of the goods sold and delivered which, according to them, the company had failed to pay notwithstanding service of notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. The aforementioned application for winding up was taken up on 10.10.2002 by a learned Single Judge of this Court who admitted the application after hol...

Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)202CTR(Cal)501,[2006]284ITR295(Cal)

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner-company is aggrieved by the decision of the AO dt. 16th Feb., 2006 and also by the assessment order dt. 24th Feb., 2006 made by him. The assessment order has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit dt. 1st March, 2006.2. Notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 15th March, 2005. It was regarding asst. yr. 1998-99. Reasons for reopening the assessment were recorded and disclosed by the AO on 2nd June, 2005. There is no dispute that the reasons were received by the petitioner-company on that day itself. In October, 2005 it moved this Court by filing a writ petition against steps taken by the authorities for transferring all its cases with a view to centralising its tax matters. Certain interim order was made. Notice under Section 142 was issued on 17th Jan., 2006. On 31st Jan., 2006 it submitted its objections to the reasons recorded and disclosed in support of reopening of the assessment. On 13th Feb., 2006 i...

Bengal Bus Syndicate and ors., Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal232,(2006)2CALLT220(HC),2007(1)CHN33

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. Since in all these writ petitions vires of a provision of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules. 1989. Rule 88A, has been challenged, they have been heard together. In the three writ petitions moved on the appellate side validity of a notification dated May 24th, 2005 issued under that Rule 88A has also been questioned.2. The rule was inserted by Rule 2 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2005. It reads as follows:88A. Powers of the State Government to impose special conditions on permit restricting plying of transport vehicles (Passenger as well its Goods) beyond a particular age and in any particular area of the State.--The State Government may, by issue of notification to be published in the Official Gazette, direct the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, to impose such special conditions on issue of permits for transport vehicles as may deem fit restricting the plying of transport vehicles bey...

Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and anr. Vs. Bimalendu Chowdhury ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)CHN604

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Writ petitioner No. 1 was a Government company (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner company') Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the first matter were workmen under the petitioner company. In September, 1994 they were asked to appear at a selection test for the purpose of considering their candidature for promotion. They did not choose to appear at the said test and as such they were not considered by the departmental promotional committee for promotion. Both of them approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Asansol by raising industrial dispute and ultimately approached 9th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Durgapur where reference case was initiated being Reference Case No. 23 of 1990. Before the Tribunal the petitioner company raised the preliminary question as to the maintainability of the said reference. The Tribunal ultimately published an award answering the reference in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and held that non-consideration of the re...