Kolkata Court February 2007 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.
Hotel Dock Palace Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)2CALLT259(HC),[2007(113)FLR692]
Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. These 24 applications under Section 482 of the Cr PC are being disposed of by this common Judgment and order since the facts are identical and the points of law are common.2. The petitioner No. 1, a company, in the name and style of M/s. Hotel Dock Palace Private Limited and the petitioner No. 2, the Managing Director of this company have been prosecuted by the Regional Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner-II, West Bengal for their failure to make deposit of the Provident Fund dues, under the Employees' Pension Fund Scheme and under Insurance Scheme and submission of return within the period prescribed by the statute during the months from December, 2000 to March, 2005.3. The petitioners pray for quashing of all the proceedings on the ground that subsequent to the launching of the prosecution they have deposited the dues and since payments have already made, albeit belatedly, there is no point in continuing with the prosecution.4. The question, therefore, is ...
Sahanaj Bibi Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN208
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. Two writ petitioners have been filed by two different petitioners. The first writ petition being W.P. No. 23927(W) of 2005 was filed by Mr: Chatterjee's client who is the Pradhan of Shirakole Gram Panchayat. The other writ petition being W.P. No. 18169(W) of 2006 was filed by Mr. Basu's client who are the members of the said Gram Panchayat.2. In the first writ petition, the legality and/or validity of the notice dated 8th December, 2005 by which requisition meeting was convened by Mr. Basu's client was challenged by Mr. Chatterjee's client. In the other writ petition, the legality and/or validity of the order dated 22nd February, 2006 passed by the prescribed authority being the respondent No. 2 disapproving the resolution adopted by the majority members for removal of the Pradhan was challenged by Mr. Basu's client who convened the said requisition meeting.3. Since the dispute in both the aforesaid writ petitions are interrelated with each other, this Cour...
Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Tvs Motor Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN377,2008(36)PTC159(Cal)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The plaintiff filed CS No. 25 of 2006 alleging that the defendants had been infringing its registered trade mark, and had also been using a deceptibly similar trade mark for passing off their goods as those of its. In the suit it took out this application for interlocutory orders. By order dated February 8th, 2006 the defendants were directed to go on submitting monthly statement of sale in sealed cover to the special officer, appointed thereby, which is still in force. The question for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any interim restraining order.2. Its case is this. It manufactures and sells motorcycles, cars, etc. Its gods are sold, inter alia, under a well-known trade mark 'City', and it has prominent presence in two-wheeler segment all over the world. The defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling motorbikes. They started selling a variant of their motorbikes under the trade mark 'Star City'. In Septembe...
Dilip Kumar Moitra Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN526
1. The appellant/writ petitioner herein has preferred this appeal from the judgment and order dated 21st June, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, being CO. No. 7791(W) of 1992, whereby and whereunder the said learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. While dismissing the aforesaid writ petition, the learned Single Judge specifically observed that the Writ Court cannot decide the disputed question as to the correct age of any person and following the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court also observed that right to get the date of birth corrected is not a legal right.2. The learned Single Judge specifically held while deciding the said writ petition that the stale claim should not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner that the respondent-company asked the appellant to retire from service before attaining the actua...
Keya Mazumdar and anr. Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN498
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State are present.2. Affidavit-of-service shows that notice was sent to the opposite party/de facto complainant by registered post with A/D. From the postal endorsement, it appears that intimation was given. But still the de facto complainant did not receive the same. As such, I consider that notice was properly sent to the de facto complainant. Since the de facto complainant is not appearing, so the revisional application is taken up for hearing in presence of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.3. I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for both the sides. It appears that a case under Section 494/406 was started against the petitioners by the de facto complainant. On the basis of that a police case was started and chargesheet has already been submitted under Section 496/494/406/34 IPC. At the very outset, Mrs. Goswami, learned Advocate ...
Umesh Kumar Mahato and 14 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ176CAT
1. The applicant, Umesh Kumar Mahato and others total 15 in number, have filed this case under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following reliefs: (a) Let the application be allowed to move before the Hon'ble Tribunal by the applicants jointly on common cause of action under Section 4(5)(a) of the CAT Procedure Rules, 1987 as amended time to time; (b) Direct the respondents to cancel and/or set aside the impugned employment notice dated 25.7.1997 as set out in document A-1; (c) Direct the respondents to cancel and/or set aside impugned panel dated 26.5.1999 as set out in document A-6; (d) Direct the respondents to cancel and/or set aside the impugned recruitment right of the persons who have already been given recruitment out of the aforesaid impugned employment notice and impugned panel for the Group 'D' post; (e) Direct the respondents to publish fresh employment notice by calling for actual number of UR candidates including the applicant, Reserve...
Sudhir Kumar Nandi Vs. Dhiren Nandi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN265
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This revisional application has been preferred under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the CrPC against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22/12/1998 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. 42/November, 1996.2. The circumstances leading to filing of the case is that on 16/4/1995 while one Rabindranath Giri was returning home at about 11.30 p. m. at that time he found one motorcycle outside the house of one Sristidhar Basuri. Some of the opposite parties were present there. At that time Rabindranath Giri heard the opposite party No. 1 disclosing that petitioner Sudhir Nandi should be taught a lesson otherwise the CPI (M) party could not be strengthened in the locality. Rabindranath thereafter reported the matter to the petitioner.3. On 17/4/1995 at about 8 a.m. while the petitioner was attending his customers, he heard the shouting of slogan and a procession was coming towards his house. The processionist...
Plasto-form (India) Vs. Controlling Authority (Under Payment of Gratui ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR266],(2007)IILLJ993Cal
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated February 4, 2004 holding that since provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 were applicable to the two units of the firm taken together, it was under the statutory obligation to pay gratuity to the third respondent (Smt. Gita Mondial) in terms of provisions of that Act.2. After working in the Behala Printing Unit of the firm for long twenty-two years the third respondent resigned from service in May, 2002. In terms of an arrangement between the firm and the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Corporation paid her, through the firm, Rs. 8,421/- on account of gratuity. Gratuity was not paid to her in terms of provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, on the ground that provisions of the Act were not applicable.3. The third respondent submitted an application to the controlling authority alleging that the firm had not paid her gratuity in te...
Ranjit Chakraborty and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN318
Amit Talukdar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barasat in Sessions Trial No. 1(1) 1992. The four appellants -- Ranjit Chakraborty @ Rana Asit Biswas @ Manai, Dulal Paul @ Dola Paul and Dulal Das (hereinafter referred to as 'Al', 'A2', 'A3' and 'A4' respectively) were found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge, in respect of the charge of Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each; in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The present appellants faced the Trial along with two others -- Apurba Parial @ Kochan and Tapash Singha Roy @ Bhari, who stood acquitted. However, the co-accused Babuni expired.2. The appeal has been argued in part by Mrs. Bhattacharya learned Advocate for Al and Shri Ganguly, learned Advocate for A2, A3 and A4 separately,3. Mrs. Bhattacharya submitted that the entire conviction of t...
Bapi Construction Vs. Pronob and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2007
Reported in: [2008]82SCL13(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner has sought winding up of the company upon the company's refusal to refund the advance made in pursuance of a purchase order which the company failed to execute.Three purchase orders were issued on 12-12-2003, by the petitioner on the company for supply of counter weight plates of divers specifications. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 15,50,000 was paid by way of advance by the petitioner to the company in respect of the three purchase orders. The company supplied materials against two of the purchase orders. After adjusting the company's bills of Rs. 11,35,650 against the supplies made, the balance of the advance made remained refundable. A sum of Rs. 86,341 was thereafter paid by a cheque dated 13-1-2004. The petitioner has claimed the balance amount after giving credit to the company for the part payment of Rs. 86,341. The balance principal sum claimed is Rs. 3,28,044, though the figures Rs. 11,35,650, Rs. 3,28,044 and Rs. 86,341 do not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »