Kolkata Court March 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Anoop Kumar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(204)ELT522(Cal)
ORDERBhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. In this reference the following questions of law arise for determination :(i) Whether the Import Trade Control Licence produced by the importer is eligible for import of the goods in question which are not listed in the Appendix XXXV of the Handbook of Procedure 1st April, 1992 to 31st March, 1997 (Vol-1) and therefore not covered by the said licence?(ii) Whether there is any scope for applying the common parlance test to arrive at the right identity of the goods when the item indisputably falling under Tariff Heading No. 9503.90 is consumer goods and hence not covered by the licence produced by the importers?(iii) Whether there was any scope on the part of the importers to form bona fide belief that the goods in question were importable against the special import licence when the list of goods in Appendix -XXXV of the Handbook of Procedure 92-97 did not include at all?(iv) Whether a judicial pronouncement based on assumption or presumption is maintainab...
Ashis Sen and ors. Vs. Arun Kumar Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN305
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of dendants No. 1(a) to 1(c) in a probate proceeding and is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 29th June, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Alipore in Original Suit No. 3 of 2005 (Old No. O.S. 56 of 1950) thereby allowing the application for grant of probate filed by the plaintiff/respondent as executor in respect of the Will dated 1st March. 1949 executed by the testator Bimal Behari Sen (since deceased) in favour of his daughter Gita Kani Sen.2. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows:The name of plaintiff has appeared in the cause title of appeal and in Lower Court Record in different manner; somewhere as Arun Kumar Bose, somewhere Arun Coomar Bose and in the Will as Aroon Kumar Bose. For the sake of convenience in this judgment we shall use his name as Aroon Kumar Bose.3. The plaintiff/respondent instituted the suit for grant of probate of the last Will and testa...
Sibpur Hindu Girls' High School and Ors. Vs. Sujit Kumar Banerjee and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT101(HC),2006(3)CHN90
Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. The application for condonation of delay in preferring the review petition and the main application for review of the order dated September 6, 2004 passed by the Division Bench have been heard together.2. Admittedly, there was some delay in preferring review application. The applicants have satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay in filing the review petition. Evidently, the materials and particulars could not be placed earlier. The delay having been properly explained, the application in CAN 2900 of 2005 for condonation of delay is allowed.3. Following the denial of admission of their wards in Sibpur Hindu Girls' High School, the writ petitioners prayed for automatic admission of their wards in class-V of that institution without their wards undergoing the admission test. Claiming their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to get their wards admitted in Class-V of Sibpur Hindu Girls' High School, the writ petitioners contend...
Sona Rauth and Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN93
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Four persons in all namely Joy Prakash Prasad, Sona Rauth, Paresh Mallick and Prem Prakash Prasad faced trial under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durgapore in connection with Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1996 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 11 of 1995.2. After conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found Sona Rauth and Paresh Mallick guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and accordingly both of them were convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default simple imprisonment for further period of three months each. Sona Rauth and Paresh Mallick being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the order of conviction and sentence preferred this appeal in the year 1999 from jail.3. One Ashok Kr. Bose submitted a written complaint with Kanksha P.S. in the district of Burdwan to the effect that on 12th January, 1992 at about 8.00...
Ujjal Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN172
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya1. The propriety of the order dated 29th December, 2005 passed by the competent authority in connection with a proceeding under Section 21B of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The said proceeding was initiated on the basis of the petitioner's application dated 28th November, 2005 wherein a prayer was made for declaring the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as disqualified for being Councillor on the ground that the said respondents voluntarily gave up their membership of the recognised political party which set up the said respondents for their election as Councillors in the said Municipality.3. Such prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 3 viz., the competent authority on the following grounds :(i) An incomplete application has been filed by the petitioner.(ii) Petitioner's prayer cannot be allowed due to inconclusive evidence.4. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submit...
Sujoy Biswas and ors. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN404
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. Challenging the inaction on the part of the authorities of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for not considering the petitioners' application for renewal of the building plan in respect of premises No. 15, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road, Ashok Nagar Market, Kolkata, the instant writ petition was moved by the owners of the said premises.2. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of the direction upon the authorities of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for early consideration of the petitioner's said application for renewal of the building plan in accordance with Rule 62 (A) of the Building Rules, 1977 for a further period of five years from the date of renewal, on payment of fees as prescribed therein.3. The grievance against the inaction on the part of the Municipal authorities can be redressed by making them active by order of the Court. But the entire grievance of the petitioners cannot be redressed unless the incidental prayer as referred to above is ...
Satyendra Nath Mondal and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Cal151
Soumitra Pal, J.1. Let affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the records.2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for several reliefs. The relevant prayer is as under:(a) Let a rule do issue out of and under the seal of this Hon'ble Court asking the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ of or a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not go commanding the respondents to supply a copy of the questionnaires to the petitioners within a time as specified by this Hon'ble Court and before inspection is being held by the District Level Inspection Team for the purpose of granting recognition and to act in accordance with law.3. The petitioners have also prayed for an interim order which is as under:(c) An interim order be issued directing the respondents to supply a copy of the questionnaire to the petitioners within a fortnight from the date of passing of the order and before inspection is being held in the school in question.4. It is subm...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sambhunath Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT482(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. All the above numbered appeals along with the applications are disposed of by this common Judgment and order. Claims/Prayers made out in the writ petition in connection with the above appeals are identical: facts are more or less same except one or two deviations as described hereinbelow. Since the points of law to be decided and facts in all the appeals are identical, all are taken up analogously for hearing.Facts in Brief:2. The writ petitioners herein claimed to be the Lecturers of different non-Government Colleges of West Bengal. The writ petitioners/respondents joined the respective institutions in or about the year 1976 to 1979. The writ petitioners/respondents passed M.A. Examination in different subjects. The writ petitioners/respondents have annexed the certificates in support of their qualifications but since the respondents haven't annexed the mark-sheets it is not clear as to what are the percentage of marks secured by them e.g. Sambhunath Chatterjee,...
Gurdeb Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC827,2006ACJ2209
P.K. Samanta and S.P. Talukdar, JJ.1. This appeal Commissioner for the purpose of doing is by the claimant-appellant for enhance-justice to this case accepted the amount ment of the award made by the learned as deposed by the said employer before Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation the Investigating Officer of the insurance Court in Claim Case No. 401 of 2002.2. The only point urged on behalf of the claimant-appellant is that learned Commissioner acted illegally by not accepting the evidence of the employer of the victim who was a driver and died while he was in employment.3. It appears from the impugned judgment that employer of the victim deposed that he used to pay Rs. 4,200 per month to in his driver. The salary certificate issued by him was not proved according to law. The in the selfsame owner in an investigation conducted by the insurance company deposed by saying that he used to pay the victim driver at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month. Since the said employer deposed different...
Gurdeep Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC171
P.K. Samanta, J.1. This appeal is by the claimant-appellant for enhancement of the award made by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Court in Claim Case No. 401 of 2002.2. The only point urged on behalf of the claimant-appellant is that learned Commissioner acted illegally by not accepting the evidence of the employer of the victim who was a driver and died while he was in employment.3. It appears from the impugned judgment that employer of the victim deposed that he used to pay Rs. 4,200 per month to his driver. The salary certificate issued by him was not proved according to law. The self-same owner in an investigation conducted by the Insurance Company deposed by saying that he used to pay the victim driver at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month. Since the said employer deposed differently on two different occasions, the learned Commissioner for the purpose of doing justice to this case accepted the amount as deposed by the said employer before the Investigating Officer of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »