Kolkata Court August 2006 Judgments
Satyabrata Das and ors. Vs. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authorit ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN406,[2007(113)FLR270]
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Petitioners were engaged by the State as Master Roll Workers in Public Health Engineering Department in 1970s. They were discharging the duty of night-guard and/or khalasi under the Work Charge Establishment of the State. On and from May 1, 1975 the petitioners were transferred to Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'CMDA'). In 1980 they were absorbed in a regular basis by CMDA by an order passed on July 25,1980. Another group of Master Roll Workers who were working as pump operators on daily wage basis were regularized by CMDA as pump-cum-valve operators by an order dated July 25, 1980 with retrospective effect from August 1, 1979. The petitioners were also regularized in the post of night-guard/khalasi in CMDA. They were, however, discharging additional duty of pump operating. They made a grievance for higher scale of pay. The Grievance Committee went into the controversy and resolved the issue by extending additional pay...
Tag this Judgment!Swapan Kumar Maity Vs. South Eastern Railways and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN616
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of a writ petitioner and is directed against the order dated 10th January, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship rejected the writ application filed by the appellant in which the appellant prayed for setting aside the decision taken by the Railway Authority to cancel his selection to the post of 'Commission Agent' for Badalpur Passenger Halt and to hold a fresh selection.2. There is no dispute that pursuant to an advertisement given by the South-Eastern Railway Authority for awarding contract for working as a Commission Agent for Badalpur Passenger Halt in between Kanthi-Digha New Broad Gage Section, the writ petitioner participated in the process of selection and he was declared selected for working as a Commission Agent by the letter of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager/Kharagpur dated 9th December, 2004.3. Subsequently, by a further letter dated 22nd December, 2004, the said Senior Divisi...
Tag this Judgment!Manju Chatterjee and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-2006
Reported in: 2008ACJ1086
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Sanjib Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.6.2003 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Third Court, Howrah. The appellants-claimants, who are the wife and the daughter respectively, of the victim, claimed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 as compensation on account of the accidental death of one Ashim Kumar Chatterjee. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 in all. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of the award the present appeal has been preferred.2. We have gone through the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal. We are of the view, particularly reading the ordering portion of the judgment that the learned Tribunal has made a guesswork beyond the permissible limit. No particulars have been given as to how a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 could be awarded except mentioning mental agony and shock for which a sum of Rs. 50,000 has been awarded. The balance sum of Rs. 1,00,000 has been awarded on th...
Tag this Judgment!Lalita Almal Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN196
ORDERJyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The Municipal Authority disconnected the supply of water to the petitioner's premises at No. 2. Garstin Place, Kolkata-700001, by invoking its jurisdiction under Section 275(1)(aa) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, for non-payment of the rates and taxes of the said premises. The provision contained in Section 275(1)(aa) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act has already been declared as ultra vires by Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya in the case of Neelambar Finevest Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported in 2003 (1) CHN 253. Admittedly, the supply of water was disconnected on 29th November, 2005 after the said provision was declared as ultra vires by His Lordship.2. Mr. Das Adhikary, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the said judgment of Justice Bhattacharya has already been appealed against and an interim order of stay of the judgment of Justice Bhattacharya was passed in the...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Irrigation and Waterways Department and ors. Vs. Choudhury ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2006
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN623
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 31st March, 1999 and 8th April, 1999 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Special Judge in case No. 69 of 1996. The instant appeal has been preferred by some officials of the State of West Bengal being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation award by the learned Land Acquisition Judge. The short facts of the case are as follows.2. Several plots of land were acquired by and under a notification issued under Section 4 of Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred, to as Act II) All the plots of land in question are situated in mouza Choprajhar bearing Nos. 1212 and 1240, and khatian Nos.574 and 580 in the District of Uttar Dinajpur. The land was acquired for the purpose of the Teesta Barrage Project. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation, which was not found by the claimant respondent. Hence an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act I of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prasad Trading Company and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Cal38
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In all these bunch of execution applications the point has been raised for consideration, as to whether in view of amendment of Section 39 with insertion of Sub-section (4) of Civil Procedure Code this Court being executing Court has any authority to execute the decree passed by it against any person residing or touching property situated outside the local limit of its jurisdiction or not. One of the Learned single Judge of this Court in case of Smt. Uma Kanoria v. Pradip Kumar Daga reported in : AIR2003Cal162 while interpreting the amended provision of the section has held that in view of insertion of aforesaid Sub-section (4) the Court which has passed the decree, is not authorized to execute the decree against the person or property residing and situate outside the local limit of its jurisdiction. The Learned Counsels on behalf of the respective persons in all these matters have advanced argument in both ways 'which are summarized hereunder.2. Mr. A....
Tag this Judgment!All Bengal Excise Licensees' Association and Ors. Vs. the State of Wes ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2006
Reported in: (2007)1CALLT311(HC)
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. This application under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioners alleging deliberate and wilful violation of the solenm passed by this Bench on 4th January, 2005, 19th January, 2005 and 28th January, 2005 In the writ petition being W.P. No. 2248 of 2004.2. The aforesaid writ petition was moved upon notice to the respondents on 4th January, 2005 when the following order was passed by this Bench:The Court: Let this matter be listed before the regular Bench one week after the Christmas vacation.In the meantime, let there be an interim order only to the effect that the respondent authorities herein will be at liberty to process the applications in respect of grant of licence for excise shops but no final selection in respect of such shops shall be made without obtaining specific leave of this Court.I also make it clear that the respondent authorities will also not hold any lottery for the purpose of final selection of the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Satyanarayan Mondal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN411
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioners are alleging that though possession of their land which was subject-matter of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Collector by publishing the requisite Section 4 notification dated November 16,2001 had been taken by the authorities in 1998 even before initiating the acquisition proceedings, till date nothing has been paid to them on account of compensation.2. From the Section 4 notification, I find that provisions in Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were invoked, and that the competent authority directed that provisions in Section 5A would not apply to the land described in the schedule to the notification. On instructions Counsel for the State respondents submits that since no award was made in the acquisition proceedings, in terms of provisions in Section 11A the proceedings lapsed. She says that the award could not made and declared by the Collector, since the requiring body did not make the fund available.3. Si...
Tag this Judgment!Enfield Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: (2007)107ITD1(Kol.)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dt.13th Feb., 2006 of the CIT(A), Central-I, Kolkata pertaining to block period 1990-91 to 14th Dec, 1999. In this appeal, the assessee has raised several grounds, but all of them are against confirming the penalty imposed under Section 158BFA(2) and further enhancing it with a direction to determine the quantum of penalty on the amount of difference between the loss declared in the return under Section 158BC of Rs. 1,29,57,430 and the income determined in the block assessment order of Rs. 35,73,902, i.e. Rs. 1,65,31,332.2. The assessee-company is closely held by Sonthalia Group, The facts as emerge from the record and submissions made before the Tribunal are that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the residential and business premises of the assessee-company and its directors on 14th Dec, 1999 under Section 132 of the Act. It was brought to the notice of the Bench by the assessee's learned Counsel that, a...
Tag this Judgment!Saregama India Ltd. Vs. Suresh Jindal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Cal340,2007(34)PTC522(Cal)
ORDERSoumitra Sen, J.1. This application has been taken out by the petitioner, inter alia, for restraining the respondents from selling any records or cassettes, discs or any other sound recordings in respect of the films produced by the respondent No. 1 during the currency of the agreements which are the subject-matter of the present proceeding.2. The petitioner was earlier known as the Gramophone Company of India Limited. The present name has been adopted by and under a fresh certificates of incorporation dated 3rd November, 2000 due to change of name.3. The main business of the petitioner is recording of film songs, music and dialogues.4. The petitioner claims that such recording is carried on by and under several agreements entered into with the Film Producers.5. Under the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), the producers of the film is the first owner of the copyright in respect of all literary and musical works which includes songs, music and dialogue...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »