Kolkata Court May 2007 Judgments

Sasanka Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3100

Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. The sole appellant, Sasanka Ghosh, was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 37 of 1988 and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more. Sasanka Ghosh thereafter preferred this appeal from jail challenging his conviction and sentence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.2. The prosecution case was that Sasanka Ghosh was husband of Anima Ghosh since deceased, who was niece of Sufal Ghosh of village Duadanda under P.S. Khanakul. On 25th May, 1987 Sasanka with his wife Anima spent night in a room at the house of Sufal Ghosh and on the next morning Anima was found dead. Sufal Ghosh by lodging a written complaint with O.C., Khanakul P.S. suspected that Sasankamur dered Anima by strangulation.3. On receipt of the written complaint of Sufal Ghosh. O.C., Khanak...

Hutchison Telecom East Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

1. The above two appeals preferred by the assessee and the above two appeals preferred by the revenue and the two cross objections filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the learned CIT-XL, Kolkata dated 23-3-2005 for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively on the following grounds: Ground 1: Adjudication of issues not raised by the Asstt. CIT of Income-tax, Circle 57 (The AO). 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in suo motu adjudicating that the Roaming Charges, pass through charges, Inter operator charges and Port charges ("Interconnect charges") are liable for- TDS under Section 194C even though the assessing officer has not held so in the order passed under Section 201(1)/201 (1A) read with Section 194.1 of the Act and the applicability of Section 194C was not the subject-matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The appellant prays that the order holding applicability ...

Manik Chandra Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(2)CHN761

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The appellant/writ petitioner herein has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 20th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder the said learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The appellant/writ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to allow the said writ petitioner to participate in the interview for appointment of Group 'D' staff (Sweeper) in Raja Narendra Lal Khan Women's College in the district of Paschin Medinipore.2. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition held that in view of the Government Order issued under Memo No. 830-Edn(CS) dated 31st October, 1995, the Group 'D' posts of the colleges affiliated by the University in the State of West Bengal are to be filled up from the candidates sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange and since the aforesaid order was not challenged in the...

Kadem Shaikh Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT129(HC),2007(3)CHN416

Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. Present reference is placed before us for deciding a question of law as to the constitutional validity of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act of 2001 (Act 9 of 2001), specially the provisions by which the sentence structure was mollified.2. In course of hearing of a bail application, the Division Bench of this Court expressed its views that 'the object of inflicting deterrent punishment upon the drug traffickers, who traffic in 'significant quantity', can never be achieved if the peddlers sharing common intention and indulging in selling and possessing heroin are let loose with a minimal punishment for six months coupled with the immunity from a pre-trial imprisonment'.3. The Division Bench was of the view that a substantial question of law as to the Constitutionality of the amendments introduced to NDPS Act, 1985, by the Amendment Act of 2001, has arisen in this case, which is of general public importance affecting the rights of the parti...

India Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Newsprint Trading and Sales Corpora ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT606(HC)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Now this is the turn of the plaintiff to apply with the aforesaid application for execution of decree dated 17th March, 2004 in contrast to their earlier stand when third defendant made an application on earlier occasion for execution of the said decree. Earlier application of the third defendant was not allowed by this Court on technical ground. However, liberty was given to it to make a fresh attempt for execution of the same. The fact of the case is very interesting to show how both the litigants can prolong a settled issue to unsettle and do not like to come to real and logical conclusion to bury the hatchet and this will be revealed from the following short fact:2. Sometime in late 2002 the plaintiff instituted a civil suit being suit No. 486 of 2002 against the defendants in this Hon'ble Court praying for a decree of U.S.$ 54,65,491 for the price or newsprint sold and delivered together with interest thereon. The suit was entertained by the Court havin...

Ranotosh Saha Vs. Secretarey, Government of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(1)CHN231

Dipankar Datta, J.1. A show-cause notice dated 15.11.2002, issued by the Chairperson, Kaliaganj Municipality has been subjected to challenge in the present writ proceeding at the instance of the petitioner who, at the material time, was working in the said Municipality as an Assignment Inspector. The petitioner was sought to be proceeded against for committing misconduct of temporary defalcation of public fund, insubordination and for raising incorrect and inconsistent pleas for obtaining leave on medical ground.2. The show-cause notice was challenged not on the ground that the Chairperson had no authority to issue the same or that the same did not disclose any offence or that the allegations were vague. On the contrary, the same was assailed on the ground that before initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, a First Information Report had been lodged on 3.7.02 in relation to an allegation of defalcation of fund by the petitioner, giving rise to Kaliaganj Police Sta...

In Re: Siddharth Automobiles Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008]82SCL277(Cal)

ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. The company disputes not so much the factum of indebtedness to the petitioner as the quantum thereof to resist admission of the creditor's petition for having the company wound up. The company suggests that if accounts are required to be taken between the parties, that would have to be done in regular action and the winding up proceedings should await the result of such action.2. The manufacturer seeks to realise the price of cars sold by it, on principal to principal basis, to its distributor and is met with the plea that till such time the company is given credit for commission due to it, the claim must wait. The company seeks commission but does not quantify it, possibly because upon quantification the entirety of the demand for commission can be subtracted from the petitioner's claim and the remainder be found to be the admitted debt. The company raises the question of commission only to show that it had some form of counter-claim and urges that the citin...

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Asit Baran Banerjee and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(1)CHN339

ORDEREDThat the petition filed by the accused in this case is hereby allowed on contest and all the proceedings of the case against the accused are hereby dropped and consequently the accused Asit Baran Banerjee & Manabendra Dutt Chowdhury are hereby discharged from their bail bonds.9. Thus the learned Judge was of the view that he is bound by the decision of H.D. Burman (supra), where this Hon'ble Court held as follows:A Special Judge appointed under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and hold trial in respect of offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, when the cognizance of offences under the Act of 1988 was taken by the Special Judge appointed under the Act of 1949 before April 23, 1993 when by a Notification No. 6614-2 all the Judges of Special Court appointed under Section 2(2) read with Section 9(1) of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and function...

Sashi Bhusan Mahapatra Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT36(HC),2007(3)CHN411

Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. A Division Bench has referred the present revisional applications, in which common question of law is involved, to reconsider the earlier Special Bench decision of this Court in the case of Saktisadhan Majhi and Ors. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1994 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (Calcutta) 137, in the light of Supreme Court decision in State of West Bengal v. Falguni Dutta, reported in 1993 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (SC) 123. The question relates to the interpretation of Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by the State of West Bengal (West Bengal Act XXIV of 1988), which came into force with effect from 2nd May, 1989.2. The amended provision of Section 167(5) of the Amendment Act of 1988 reads as follows:(5) If in respect of-(i) any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months, or(ii) any case exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions or a case under Cha...

Hoogly Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. Ne ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2007Cal230

ORDERPrabuddha Sankar Banerjee, J.1. This revisional application is one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against order No. 9. dated 8-7-2004 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Hooghly in connection with CDF Case No. 38 of 2004.2. The said case was brought by the present Opposite party against the present petitioner with prayer for directing the present petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/-in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1. The present Opposite Party also prayed for relief regarding rectification and adjustment of the amount in the pass book. The present Opposite Party also prayed for passing appropriate order directing the present petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.3. The fact leading to filing of the said case may be summed up thus:(i) The present Opposite Party along with his wife approached the Hooghly Co-operative and Agricultural Development Bank for financial assistance in purchasing a tractor.(ii) The bank sanction...