Kolkata Court May 2007 Judgments

Halema Bibi and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN602

Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Malda in Sessions Trial No. 4(10) of 2003 corresponding to Sessions Case 215 of 2001 convicting accused Halema Bibi and Kalu Sk. and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default S.I. for one year each under Section 302/34 IPC.One Md. Rejaul Karim lodged complaint with O.C., Gopalgunge I.C., Malda being accompanied by Dilwara Hussain, Azijul Haque and Halema Bibi, alleging that he solemnized the marriage between his nephew Md. Samsuddin aged 21 years and said Halema one year prior to the incident. On 18.06.97 at 10.00 p.m. both Halema and Samsuddin went to their bedroom to sleep after taking meal.On 19.06.97 Halema as usual got up from the bed and started domestic work, but Samsuddin did not get up. The grand mother Jarina Bibi called Samsuddin but Samsuddin did not get up. Jarina B...

Niranjan Chatterjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN683

1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of unsuccessful applicants before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal and is directed against the order dated 6th March, 2007 passed by the said Tribunal in O.A. No. 3110 of 2005 (LRTT) thereby dismissing the application filed by the writ petitioners. In dismissing the application filed by the writ petitioners, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the B.L. & L.R.O concerned was under no obligation to honour the decree passed by a Civil Court declaring title of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners in the property and passing a further decree for the permanent injunction restraining the State respondent from disturbing the possession of the decree holder. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion that ignoring the said decree the proceeding Under Section 14T(3) of the Act should continue.2. Therefore, two questions arise for consideration in this application under Arti...

Kartick Chandra Mondal Vs. Chairman, Wbseb and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(4)CHN579

Aniruddha Bose, J.1. This batch of writ petitions relate to certain disputes arising out of applications for electricity made by mostly agriculturalists for energizing pumpsets for lifting water for cultivation purposes. These pumpsets have come to be known as submersible pumps in common parlance.2. A three-fold connection process is being followed by the electricity companies connection. Initially, an application is required to be filed in the prescribed form on payment of stipulated fees, which at present, I have been informed is rupees one thousand. These applications are filed at the local sub-stations of the West Bengal State Electricity Board (at present, due to certain restructuring, this task is being performed by West Bengal Electricity Supply Company Ltd.), whom I shall henceforth described the distribution licensee in this judgment. On filing of the application, as per the prevailing practice, the Board issues a quotation informing the applicant the amount he is required to ...

Manoshi Moholanobish Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(4)CHN233

Soumitra Pal, J.1. The writ petitoner, a resident in a flat at Neelachal Abasan Co-operative Society in Kolkata, has challenged the action of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') in issuing notices for hearing under Sections 184(3) and 184(4) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 ('the Act' for short) for assessment of the annual valuation for the first quarter 1998-99, second quarter 2001-02 and first quarter 2002-03 on several grounds, that the hearing officer lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute, written objection dated 27th October, 2003 was not considered and the order passed by the said officer on 7th November, 2003 was not valid since it was neither speaking nor reasoned. Though it has been alleged that the copy of the order was not supplied, it appears during the pendency of the petition it was communicated.2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the action of the Corporation was without jurisdiction as a...

Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (C.S.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)214CTR(Cal)676

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The subject of controversy relates to the asst. yr. 1994-95. During the said period the appellant/assessee purchased electric meters on different dates from the Gujarat Electricity Board and at the same time they let out those meters to the State Electricity Board on lease and thereby earned the rental income. The assessee submitted its return, inter alia, claiming depreciation on the value of the said meters estimated at Rs. 35.10 crores approximately. On 19th May, 1997, the (AC) passed an order disallowing the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. According to the AC), the subject transaction was nothing but a camouflage as it was nothing but a financial agreement by which money was lent and advanced by the assessee to the State Electricity Board on the said electric meters. Accordingly, the AO disallowed assessment on the rental income. The AO calculated the notional interest on the principal sum as and by way of interest income and assessed tax on the ...

Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. (C.S.) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The subject of controversy relates to the 1 assessment year 1994-95. During the said period the appellant/assessee purchased electric meters on different dates from the Gujarat Electricity Board and at the same time they let out those meters to the State Electricity Board on lease and thereby earned the rental income. The assessee submitted its return, inter alia, claiming depreciation on the value of the said meters estimated at Rs. 35.10 crores approximately. On May 19, 1997, the assessing officer passed an order disallowing the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. According to the assessing officer, the subject transaction was nothing but a camouflage as it was nothing but a financial agreement by which money was lent and advanced by the assessee to the State Electricity Board on the said electric meters. Accordingly, the assessing officer disallowed assessment on the rental income. The assessing officer calculated the notional interest on the principa...

Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Rai Bahadur Bissessurlal Mo ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009(1)CHN91

Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. The core issue in the appeal is whether Section 174(4) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 is ultra vires Constitution of India.2. The premises in question situated at 29, Rabindra Sarani formerly known as 150, Lower Chitpur Road, Calcutta is owned by a public charitable trust called Rai Bahadur Bissessurlal Motilal Halwasiya Trust. Mrs. Laxmi V. Mansata, Mr. Narendra V. Mansata, Mr. Suryakant V. Mansata and Mr. Jitendr V. Mansata took tenancy of the southern portion of the said premises at a monthly rent. The cinema hall known as 'Naaz' was administered by the members of the Mansata family. The trust received Rs. 20,300/- by way of rent from different tenants in the said premises. The annual valuation of the building was assessed at 42257/-, as reflected in the demand notice for 4th quarter 1968-69. The annual valuation was subsequently raised to Rs. 82941/- after allowing statutory induction. Against the raising of the annual valuation from Rs. 8294...

M.M. Associates and Sumi Construction and ors. Vs. State of West Benga ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN806

Dipankar Datta, J.1. The West Bengal State Rural Development Agency (hereafter the Agency), issued 'Notice inviting pre-qualification-cum-tender (two cover system) for Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, 2005-06 inviting sealed tenders in respect of different works mentioned therein by 24.8.06. Separate sealed covers were to be submitted for pre-qualification documents and bid documents. The tender notice further provided that the pre-qualification documents alone would be opened on 25.8.06 and that the financial bid documents of the technically qualified bidders would be opened for evaluation and selection of qualified bidders on 15.9.06.2. The petitioners had submitted an offer in respect of work bearing package No. WB 01 40 along with requisite documents in support of their credentials. It is the case of the petitioners that the sealed covers containing the technical bids were opened on 25.8.06. The petitioner No. 1 was found to be technically qualified. On 15.9.06, the sealed covers ...

Kakon Kumar Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN184

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an unsuccessful applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act and is directed against order dated 14th September, 2006 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2404 of 2006 thereby rejecting the application filed by the writ petitioner against the reasoned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Kolkata pursuant to an earlier order passed by the Tribunal.2. The facts giving rise to filing of this application may be summed up thus:(a) The writ petitioner appeared at the interview in the Calcutta Police for the post of Constable/Sepoy (Driver) and after such interview, was asked to appear at the Medical Board, but, notwithstanding clearance by the Medical Board, no appointment letter had been issued in his favour.(b) In column No. 13 of the verification-roll filled up by the petitioner, he answered 'no' against ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Pratul Chandra Biswas

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN505

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the employer, the Union of India, and is directed against order dated 8th June, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 836 of 2001 thereby setting aside the order of the appellate authority affirming the order of removal from service of the respondent before us and remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority for appointing an appropriate authority to enquire into the charge against the private respondent in terms of Rule 14(2) of the Service Rules.2. The only ground on which the Tribunal has set aside the order of removal and that of the appellate authority affirming the same is that the enquiry was done by a retired Government servant and according to the Tribunal, it should be done by a sitting Government servant.3. In arriving at such conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ...