Kolkata Court March 2006 Judgments

Sri Jagadish Roy Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)3CALLT411(HC),2006(4)CHN605

Jyotirmay Bhattacharjee, J.1. Admittedly the petitioner was one of theDirectors of M/s. Argosy Finance & Industrial Investments (I) Ltd. The respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the other Directors of the said Company.2. The petitioner voluntarily resigned from Directorship of the said Company on 25th July, 1989.3. A recovery proceeding was initiated against the said Company for realization of its provident fund dues to the extent of Rs. 1,27,000/- for the period from August 1985 to August 1986.4. Various modes are prescribed for recovery of such dues under Section 8B of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. One of such modes is by arrest of the employer and his detention in prison. Section 8G of the said Act provides that the provisions of the second and third schedules to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Income-tax (Certificate Proceeding) Rules, 1962 as in force from time to time, shall apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions and the Rule...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Arctic India

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)ARBLR249(Cal),(2006)2CALLT288(HC),2006(2)CHN707

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. A dispute arose out of the contract for provisions of seven numbers of walk-in-cooler for BVY at Minnie Bay, Port Blair.2. This eight months duration contract was awarded to the contractor on August 15, 1994.3. The contract was scheduled to commence on September 7. 1994. The contract was scheduled for completion by May 6, 1995. However, mutually, the completion date was extended to September 23, 1995. The work was completed on September 15, 1995.4. On September 15, 1995, the Garrison Engineer concerned certified that the works have been satisfactorily completed and taken over.5. The final bill was paid to the contractor, subject to a reservation for escalation payment to be made separately. The payment was not released to the contractor. The contractor sought for such payment by raising disputes.6. The Union of India resisted the claim of the contractor.7. It was contended that immediately after coolers have been installed some major defects were detected a...

Goutam Das Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2534

Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Nine per sons in all including the appellants stood before the learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum to face trial in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1 of September, 1995 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 53 of 1994 on the basis of Bolpur P. S. Case No. 208 dated 6th October, 1992 initiated by de-facto complainant Pulak Chakraborty.2. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Gautam Das, Joy alias Joydeb Das, Madhab Mitra, Naba-kumar Hazra, Bapi Hazra and Ajay Badyakar under Sections 148, 302/149 of the IPC and also under Sections 304/34 of the IPC and all of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 148 of the IPC and they were also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more under Section 302/149 of the IPC.3. Challeng...

Nihar Ranjan Ghosh and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)2CALLT257(HC),2006(2)CHN284

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The validity and/or legality of the notice dated 16th January, 2006 issued by ten requistionists for holding a special meeting, on requisition, for adoption of a resolution of no-confidence and/or for removal of the Chairman under Section 18(3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 deals with removal of the Chairman from the Municipality. Section 18(3) provides that a Chairman may be removed from office by resolution carried on by a majority of the total number of elected members of the Board of Councillors holding office for the time being at a special meeting to be called for this purpose in the manner prescribed, upon a resolution made in writing by not less than I/ 3rd of the total number of elected members of the Board of Councillors. Rule 6(3) of the West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995 provides that...

Juthika Banerjee and anr. Vs. Santosh Mukherjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal281,2006(4)CHN355

Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.1. This probate appeal is by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-defendant No. 1 and against the grant of probate in respect of a holograph Will written in English executed by the testator Narendranath Banerjee on 9th October 1982.2. The facts relevant for the present purpose are that the testator executed the said Will while he was aged more or less 97 years. He died on 11th October 1984 i.e. after 2 years of his execution of the said holograph Will. The plaintiff respondent was appointed as the executor to the said Will who propounded the Will for the grant of probate.3. Admittedly the testator died leaving behind him two sons and four married daughters who were all cited in the probate proceeding. One of the sons of the testator, the defendant No. 1, contested the grant while one of the married daughters namely Gita Mukherjee supported the case of the plaintiff, the propounder. All other defendants did not contest the proceeding.4. The propoun...

Birsa Oraon @ Lute Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th March, 1996, passed by thelea rned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1993, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part II of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment three years more.2. The prosecution's case in brief is that the de facto complainant, Kalam Sekh, P.W. 1 lodged a written complaint at Khargram Police Station alleging that on 15th April, 1992 at about 10 p.m. while the victim, Subol with his wife P.W.4 and others were returning home from the factory, at that time near the house of Subol the accused/appellant Birsa attacked him on road from behind and struck him with an arrow which pierced the neck of the victim and, as a result, the victim Subol sustained bleeding injury and the appellant fled away from the place. The relations of ...

Sisir Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(2)CHN224

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner alleges that the authorities are guilty of inaction in that his revised option exercised on January 24, 1992 has not been considered by them till date.2. Case of the petitioner is this. Under the previous rules he exercised option in favour of Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity. When the Government by order dated December 16, 1991 gave fresh opportunity of submitting revised option in favour of pension including family pension-cum-gratuity, he changed his mind and decided to submit the revised option in favour of pension including family pension-cum-gratuity. Consequently, he submitted the option form dated January 24, 1992. He did not refund the employer's share of contributions (to provident fund) together with interest and additional interest, out of the impression that the amount was to be refunded by him after acceptance of his revised option by the authority. From time to time he made representations, but the authorities did not tak...

Bimal Kumar Khetawat Vs. Dhan Daulat Holding Limited and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)2CALLT187(HC)

B. Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 1 in a suit for declaration, specific performance of contract and recovery of damages and is directed against the Order No. 9 dated September 23, 2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 4th Court at Alipore at Title Suit No. 56 of 2005 thereby disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of any transfer, sale, alienation, encumbrance, letting out and/ or creating any third party's interest in the developer's allocation of the construction over the suit property in terms of the registered agreement dated 5th October, 1989 between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 till the disposal of the suit.2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit being Title Suit No. 56 of 2005 in the 4th Court at Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore against the appellant and respondent No. 2 thereby claiming the...

Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Vs. Rajesh Polyfilm

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(202)ELT416(Cal)

ORDERBhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this application under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal has challenged the order dated 11th July, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata thereby dismissing four appeals preferred by the Commissioner of Customs which were heard analogously.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus:(a) On 23rd April, 1995 a vehicle was intercepted by the Customs Officers and it was found that 80 bags of plastic granules of Korean origin contained therein. As a follow up action, the business premises of M/s. Rajesh Polyfilm were searched and 360 bags of plastic graules of foreign origin were sized.(b) During the course of investigation, Sri Rajesh Agarwal, one of the partners of M/s. Rajesh Polyfilm submitted that they had purchased the said imported raw material from M/s. Kaiser Ma...

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Md. Ahmed Ali Khan

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(204)ELT36(Cal)

ORDERBhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. The following questions arise for determination in this application for reference under Section 130 of the Customs Act:Whether by virtue of the Notification No. 250-Cus. and Notification No. 251-Cus. - both dated 27th August 1983, concurrent jurisdiction has been conferred upon both the Collector of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal and the Collector of Customs, Calcutta or exercising power over the area mentioned in Item No. 2A under Column 1 of Notification No. 251?2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present application may be summed up thus:(a) Acting on information that some containers lying unclear in the docks were imported in the name of fictitious firms, the Officers of Dock Intelligence Unit (DIU) detained on 7th June, 1995 four containers landed Ex. M. V. Dhaulgiri and Ex. M. V. Tiger River. Those four containers were landed at Calcutta dock on 16th November, 1994 and 1st December, 1994 respectively and were subsequently shifted to CFS Ba...