Kolkata Court July 2006 Judgments

Sundar Enterprise Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN683

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. All these four mandamus appeals were heard together as the points involved herein are almost the same.2. The unsuccessful writ petitioners are the appellants before us. In the month of June, 2005, the appellants herein filed four separate writ applications thereby challenging four different orders, all passed by Divisional Forest Officer, Kharagpur Social Forest Tree Division, and the authorised officer of the district of Midnapur, sometime in the month of May, 2003, thereby dismissing the applications filed by the four writ petitioners for the issue of licence for running of sawmills in terms of West Bengal Forest (Establishment of Industries) Rules, 1982.3. In all the four matters, the learned Single Judge refused to entertain the writ application on the ground of delay in approaching the High Court, inasmuch as, the order sought to be impugned was passed in the month of May, 2003 whereas the writ applications were filed in the month of June, 2005, long aft...

The State of West Bengal Vs. Mr. Tarique Akhtar Alias Raja and

Court: Kolkata

Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This revisional application has been filed by the petitioner/State praying for transfer of the Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. case No. 38 of 2006 dated 01/2/2006 of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jamshedpur to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and to be amalgamated with Bowbazar P.S. case No. 50 dated 31/1/2006.2. Case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the complaint filed by one Aloke Kumar Sarkar, S.I. of Police, attached to Anti-Terrorist Cell, Detective Department, Lalbazar, Bowbazar P.S. Case No. 50 dated 31/1/2000 was started against the Petitioner No. 1. It was alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner No. 1, who is a resident of Jamshedpur in conspiracy with I.S.I. agents of Pakistan and with the members of Lashkar-e-Toiba, a known terrorist organization, for the purpose of waging war against the Government of India and in furtherance of the said common object, the petitioner No. 1 collected arms and ammuni...

P.S. Housing Finance P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Cal)72

Indira Banerjee, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged an order dated March 7, 2006, of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kol-IV, Kolkata, being respondent No. 1, issued in exercise of powers under Section 127(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, transferring the case of, inter alia, the two petitioners to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 22, Mumbai, under the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Mumbai.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated in the State of West Bengal. The petitioner has had its registered office in Kolkata, ever since its incorporation in 1988. Petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of real estate development and has since its inception been assessed to tax at Kolkata, where its registered office is situate.3. Petitioner No. 2, it is claimed, is a director and shareholder of petitioner No. 1 and carries on business through the agency and/or instrumentality of petitioner No. 1.4. The board of dire...

West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Western Region and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR960]

V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein. The learned Single Judge has directed that the writ petitioner should be interviewed and if found eligible, his name should be forwarded for appointment against the vacant post of Assistant Teacher in any school. Factual Scenario:An advertisement was issued inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Teachers in non-Governmental aided schools. These appointments were to be in the various languages as well as other groups like Science group, Arts group like History, Geography, Political Science, etc. or the other groups like Work Education, Physical Education, Commerce, etc. The candidates had to apply on the basis of their eligibility and they were required to appear at the written test and if they were successful in that test they were to be called for personality test-cum-interview. The petitioner ap...

Jyotirmay Guha Neogi Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN40

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. An unsuccessful writ petitioner being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1st December, 2005 has preferred the present mandamus-appeal.2. In the writ application, the appellant challenged the decision of the respondent-authority in selecting the private-respondent as the successful bidder for the purpose of grant of lease of a large water area, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was the highest bidder.3. The following facts are not in dispute:(a) The respondent No. 5 by his memo dated 17th November, 2003 invited tenders for the purpose of selection of a lessee for cultivation fish in a water area called 'Nehali Beel' at mouza Hatia for the annual rental of Rs. 1,10,502/-, inter alia, specifying that the tender paper would be sold on 2nd December, 2003 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. and the same should be submitted on the same day.(b) In compliance with the aforesaid memo dated 17th November, 2003, the appellant took an tender form a...

K.V. HussaIn Vs. State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(1)CHN597

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. This is a criminal revision against a judgment and order of conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months as passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair, subsequently affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2003.2. It is now well-settled that in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has the power to call for and examine the records of any proceeding for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court to correct the miscarriage of justice. However, such revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. It is, there...

Asoke Ghose Vs. Susanta Debanshi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(2)CHN197

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of a private respondent and is directed against the order dated January 28, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge thereby allowing a writ application by directing the State respondent to allow the writ petitioner to function as M.R. Dealer in the village Dakshin Rasa on the basis of and pursuant to the order dated 18th March, 2002 issued by Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S) Suri, Birbhum.2. The facts giving rise to filing of this mandamus appeal may be summed up thus:(a) The Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S) Suri, published an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of an M.R. Dealer at Dakshin Rasa in the district of Birbhum. The writ petitioner and the respondent No. 5, among others, submitted application in response to the said advertisement.(b) The candidature of the writ petitioner was recommended by the Enquiry Officer as the most suitable candidate for the appointment of M.R. Dealership in question an...

Santosh Kr. Chamaria, Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN225

Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, 10th Bench of the City Sessions Court at Calcutta in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1(4) of 1996 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 44 of 1995.2. All the three appellants faced charges under Section 348 and also under Section 302/34 of the IPC and after conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants under Section 348 and also under Section 306/34 of the IPC and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months for the offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC and they were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence under Section 348 of the IPC.3. The prosecution case in brief was that one Mahendra Singh ...

Ramani Kanta Das Vs. Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)3CALLT603(HC),[2007(112)FLR411]

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. These two appeals were filed by both the parties against the same order of the learned single Judge passed on August 5, 1999 partly allowing the writ petition of Ramani Kanta Das (hereinafter referred to as 'Ramani'), the appellant in FMA No. 1393 of 2000. Ramani read in Kalidhan Institution in South Calcutta prior to 1957. He read at the primary level for few years. In 1957 he joined Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'GRSE') as an unskilled labour. In 1959 his age was determined as 22 years as he could not produce any document in support of his date of birth. In course of his employment he passed out school final examination in 1960 as a private candidate. In 1964 he applied for the post of clerk in GRSE where he was successful. He was given appointment in the post of clerk. The letter of appointment would, however, show that such appointment was provisional and it was further mentioned that in case he was not found su...

Jagadish Lal Gambhir Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(1)CHN183,(2007)IILLJ174Cal

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The controversies being the subject-matter of the above two appeals flow from one Apex Court decision in the case of K.I. Shephard and Ors. v. Union of India reported in All India Reporter 1987, Supreme Court Page 686.2. Three private Banks were amalgamated with Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'PNB'), Canara Bank and State Bank of India respectively. One of them Hindustan Commercial Bank was merged with PNB. At the time of merger those Nationalized Banks refused to give appointment to some of the officers of those three private Banks. 29 officials of Hindustan Commercial Bank were amongst them. According to the Nationalized Banks as well as Reserve Bank of India they could not be absorbed and given employment in the Nationalized Bank at the time of amalgamation in view of specific allegations of misconduct being had as against them. One K.I. Shephard and others being the officers who were not taken in by the Nationalized Banks approached the ...