Kolkata Court April 2006 Judgments

Star Paper Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal141

Ashok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed by the Star Paper Mills Ltd., a company within the meaning of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as said Company) and one Sri Shyamal Kumar Chowdhury, impugning a judgment and order dated 30th September, 2005 passed by a learned Judge of the Writ Court whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition with costs of 200 GMs.2. That Writ Petition [C.R. No. 9817 (W) of 1982] was filed by the said company in 1982 challenging, inter alia, the Paper (Control) Order, 1979, as amended. All the three main prayers in the writ petition were directed against the said Control Order. Prayer for injunction was also made for restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said Control Order and there was also a prayer for injunction permitting the petitioner to sell white printing paper at the minimum retention price of Rs. 5633A per tonne plus excise duty and other levies applicable to the release order...

Jaytee Exports Vs. Natvar Parekh Industries Limited and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)3CALLT346(HC)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The aforesaid applications were heard together for convenience sake. The first mentioned application is demurer action taken out by the defendant No. 1 for revoking leave obtained by the plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent for instituting the aforesaid suit in this Hon'ble Court or in any event the order may be made for revoking leave obtained by the plaintiff as against the aforesaid defendant; and rejection of the plaint, filed now, and dismissing the same and in any event rejecting the plaint dismissing the above suit as against the petitioner. The second mentioned application has been taken out by the plaintiff for Judgment on admission for a sum of Rs. 27,12,000/- against the defendant No. 1 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 22nd August, 1998 till date of the payment.2. I thought the demurer action should be considered and decided first as the result thereof would obviously have inevitable legal implication on the application f...

K.V. Kamath Vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN658,[2007(113)FLR853],(2007)ILLJ936Cal

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding being Case No. C-3006 of 2002 under Section 10(1)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 read with Rule 6 of the Equal Remuneration Rules, 1976 and for setting aside the orders dated 04.06.2003 to 05.04.2004 passed therein, pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that O.P. No. 1 lodged a complaint under Section 10(1)(a) of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 read with Rule 6 of the said rules inter alia alleging that the accused persons failed to maintain register in Form 'D' at their work-spot at 19, Synagogue Street, City Centre, Calcutta - 700 001 in violation of the provisions of Section 10(1)(a) of the said Act read with Rule 6 which is not at all correct. The concerned Branch Manager who was the head of the Branch and has control over the affairs of the establishm...

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K.C. Balasubramanium

Court: Kolkata

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing arises from an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 15.06.95 passed by the learned Special Judge, 4th Special Court, Calcutta in Special Case No. 2/90 arising out of R.C. Case No. 4/1987 dated 20.01.87 under Sections 420/120B IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that on receipt of an information from a reliable source the aforesaid R.C. Case No. 4/1987 dated 20.01.87 was registered by the petitioner against the O.P. and one Bikash Sengupta inter alia alleging that the O.P. as Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, New Market Branch, Calcutta entered into a criminal conspiracy with the said Bikash Sengupta and sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- in favour of Bikash Paper Processing Industry on the basis of false statements submitted with the applicatio...

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharti Cellular Limited

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)105ITD129(Kol.)

1. Both the above appeals filed by the revenue are against the consolidated order of Ld. CIT(A)-XL, Kolkata dated 16.05.2005 for assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05. Since vide both the appeals the revenue has disputed the order of Ld. CIT(A) in treating the levy of tax Under Section 201(1) and interest Under Section 201(1A) read with Section 194H and there is a common consolidated order of Ld. CIT(A), both the above appeals were heard together and are now being disposed of vide this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing cellular mobile telephone services in Kolkata under the brand name "AIRTEL". The assessee provides such premises through its distributors by selling to them Starter Pack and Rechargeable Coupons which is commonly known as "SIMCARD" and pre-paid Card (as there is no dispute regarding post-paid Card Mobile holders). These "Simcards" and rechargeable coupons were purchased by ...

Mahendra Kanji Sicca Vs. Pradip Kumar Ghosh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)3CALLT458(HC),2006(2)CHN607

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against judgment and order dated January 20, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, District South 24-Parganas in Civil Revision Case No. 3 of 2006 affirming the order dated January 12, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Alipore, District South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 231 of 2004.2. Both the Courts below concurrently rejected an application filed by the defendant No. 6/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint.3. Following facts are relevant to deal with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:(a) Admittedly, Asit Kumar Ghosh, since deceased, was the original landlord of 23A, Asutosh Chowdhury Avenue, previously known as 23A, Old Ballygunge Road, Kolkata.(b) Asit Kumar Ghosh inducted Moolji Sicca and company, a partnership firm, as a tenant at a monthly rental...

B.G. Sampat Vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)CHN303,[2006(111)FLR738],(2006)IIILLJ1021Cal

Soumitra Sen, J.1. This is an application for review of a judgment dated 23rd September, 2004 along with an application for condonation of delay.2. The application for review has been taken out on 22nd November, 2005. Therefore, there is a delay of about one year in preferring the above application.3. As an explanation for the reasons of delay the petitioner has stated that delay has occurred due to financial constraints and due to ill-health. As the grounds made out in the application for condonation of delay was cryptic and without any material particulars the petitioner was given liberty to file a supplementary affidavit. Pursuant thereto a supplementary affidavit has been filed. Unfortunately, in the said supplementary affidavit also no cogent reasons have been given with regard to the delay. The petitioner has also stated that the lawyers to whom he had gone to take advice had opined that the petitioner should prefer a special leave petition. Though a review application was anothe...

Smt. Pranati Chatterjee Vs. Shri Goutam Chatterjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal196,I(2007)DMC89

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 1999 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in Matrimonial Petition No. 150 of 1995 thereby allowing an application for grant of divorce.2. The respondent herein filed in the Family Court a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act thereby praying for divorce and the case made out by the respondent may be summed up thus:(a) The respondent was working as an employee of South Eastern Railway and pursuant to the negotiation between the parents of the parties, they were married on 27th February, 1989 according to the Hindu rites and thereafter they started residing as husband and wife at premises No. 120, Adyanath Saha Road, P. S. Lake Town.(b) To the surprise of all, it was found that even on the very first day after the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant was not of the kind one...

internal Road Service Vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata

Court: Kolkata

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Order No. 51 dated February 15, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1999.2. By the order impugned the learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court rejected an application filed by the appellant/petitioner dated February 1,2006 for addition of Star Paper Mills Limited as respondent in the said appeal holding, inter alia, that the presence of the said Star Paper Mills Limited was not at all necessary for adjudication of the appeal.3. The estate officer started a proceeding under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The said proceeding was registered as Case No. 279 of 1999 before the estate officer.4. By the order dated July 9, 1999, the estate officer passed an order of eviction against the petitioner.5. Alleging that the petitioner was not granted proper opportunity...

Somnath Mukherjee Vs. Mamata Rani Saha

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)CHN213

Tapen Sen, J.1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 13.2.2006 passed by the learned VIth Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore in Ejectment (RC) Case No. 175 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, while dealing with an application under Section 27(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) he held that it was the Controller alone who was empowered to entertain such an application and therefore, he was not inclined to entertain the same. As a consequence, he directed that the petition under Section 27(2) of the said Act be returned so that it could be filed before the concerned Controller within the period of limitation.2. The opposite party filed an application for evicting the petitioner on the ground of default and reasonable requirement before the VIth Additional Rent Controller at Alipore where the same was registered as Ejectment Case No. 175 of 2005.3. The petitioner who is the tenant entered appearance a...