Kolkata Court July 2007 Judgments

Ashim Kumar Das Vs. Sanjib Roy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(4)CHN302

Arunabha Basu, J.1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Let affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.3. In spite of service none appears for the opposite party No. 2.4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that so far as the C.R. Case No. 415 of 2003, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad, passed an order dated November 23, 2006 whereby the learned Magistrate held that the case was not maintainable and dismissed the case and also discharged the accused persons.5. From the certified copy of the order produced before this Court it appears that the petition of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the petitioner and vide order dated October 1, 2003, the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance examined the witnesses in terms of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issue process against the accused persons ...

Shri M.S. Murugan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT366(HC),[2008(116)FLR945]

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The sixth respondent in the Original Application No. 44/AN/2006 filed by one Shri Mohan Rao and four others (the sixth to tenth respondents in the present case) took out this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit at Port Blair dated May 25, 2007. By the order the tribunal allowed the original application and set aside the ad hoc promotion given to the petitioner to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector.2. By an order dated October 31, 2005 the Inspector General of Police, A & N Islands promoted the petitioner to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector on ad hoc basis with immediate effect. That order was partially modified by an order dated November 2, 2005 saying that the promotion given to the petitioner would be subject to his qualifying and being confirmed as Head Constable, since he had not undergone the lower school course to make him eligible for the promotional rank. He was directed to u...

Smt. Sangeeta Bai More and ors. Vs. the Collector (Adm), Land Acquisit ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)1CALLT33(HC)

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 questioning the award of the District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair dated April 13, 2007 made in L.A. Case No. 04 of 2003 that was initiated on the basis of a reference made by the collector, apparently, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award under Section 11 was made by the collector on October 25, 2002.2. The land for acquisition whereof the Section 4(1) notification, followed by a notification under Section 17, was issued on July 11, 2002 was originally owned by one Vitoba More. He died long ago and was survived by his wife (Dhan Dei), only son (Ram Chander), and five daughters (Subadra and Ors.). Ram Chander died in 1984 and he was survived by his mother, wife (Sangeeta) and six children. On Ram Chander's death, Sangeeta, with her mother-in-law and six children, applied for mutation of the property in question, and we are told that Subadra an...

Jasoda Singh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(1)CHN678

S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The petitioner, Jasoda Singh, by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution prayed for setting aside of the order dated 17.8.2006 passed by the learned Single Member of the Child Welfare Committee, Salt Lake, Kolkata, in CWC Case No. 106/s/06. The said order was passed in response to an application dated 4th May, 2006 filed by the present petitioner under Section 39 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Children) Act, 2000 for restoration of the alleged child victim, Honey Singh alias Simi Malhotra alias Dipika.2. The petitioner also sought for a direction for restoration of the said child to the petitioner's custody as well as for other reliefs in accordance with law.3. The backdrop of the present controversy may briefly be summed up as follows:Honey Singh alias Simi Malhotra was a mentally as well physically challenged young girl. Her parents, Shankar Singh and his wife, were unable to take due care of her. They requested the petitioner, Ja...

Sristidhar Mondal and anr. Vs. Lakshmanjoy Mondal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(1)CHN788

S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th December, 1999 and the decree dated 03.01.2000 passed in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1998 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Suri, Birbhum. The said appeal arose out of the suit being Title Suit No. 48 of 1995 which was dismissed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Rampurhar, Birbhum by passing judgment dated 17.02.98 and decree dated 24.02.98.2. At the very outset, it may be worth mentioning that the only point raised for adjudication in the present appeal is whether the facts and circumstances of the present case attract Section 14(1) or Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.3. In the best interest of proper appreciation of the controversies raised in the dispute between the parties, it is, perhaps, necessary to refer to the factual backdrop of the present case.4. The father of the plaintiff, Bankulal Mandal, since deceased, was owner of the suit property. He died in July, 1955 leaving the pla...

Varas International (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

1. In pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8667-8668 of 1997 arising out of Income Tax Reference Nos.97 of 1994 & 160 of 1992 in R.A. Nos. 1036/C of 1992& 259/C of 1991, these two appeals were taken up for hearing on 23-4-2007, 4-5-2007 and 21-5-2007. The Learned Senior Advocate for the revenue was asked to file rebuttal in regard to documents filed by the assessee's counsel within 10 days i.e., on or before 14-5-2007 but he prayed for one months more time to file the same. Till 21-5-2007, i.e., the 3rd date of hearing, nothing has been filed. As such we proceeded to pass the order assuming that the revenue does not have anything to file further and dictated the order on 9-7-2007 after waiting for about more than a month. Even till today, i.e., signing of the order, nothing has been filed from the side of the revenue.2. These two appeals pertaining to assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were earlier heard and disposed of by the Tribunal in...

Ghisulal Tailor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT463(HC),2007(4)CHN205

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The appellant/writ petitioner was a member of the Indian Air Force. He was on leave on and from May 31, 1983 to July 15, 1983. He overstayed up to June 11, 1984 when he was apprehended and proceeded with in a Court martial proceeding. He was awarded the following punishment:(I) To be reduced to the rank(II) To be dismissed from service(III) To suffer rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months.2. He, however, did not have to suffer rigorous punishment for eighteen months as he by that time suffered punishment for twenty-four months. He approached this Court at a stage when the final order of punishment was not confirmed by the appropriate authority.3. It was the case of the appellant that after completion of fifteen years service coupled with the extended period of six years, he expressed his unwillingness to have further extension and prayed for his discharge which was initially withheld by the authority. According to him, since he was unwilling to serve the F...

Jagmohan Dalmiya Vs. the Board of Control for Cricket in India and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2008Cal227

ORDERIndira Banerjee, J.1. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner, a former President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, hereinafter referred to as Respondent BCCI, has prayed for inter alia an order of injunction restraining Respondent BCCI from giving effect to the resolution taken at the special general meeting of Respondent BCCI held on 16th December, 2006 whereby the petitioner has inter alia forfeited all his rights and privileges as an administrator of Respondent BCCI, ceased to hold any position or office in any member or associate member of Respondent BCCI and been debarred from holding any position or post in any member or associate member of the petitioner in future.2. Respondent BCCI is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and deemed to be registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the 1975 Act by virtue of Section 53 of the said 1975 Act.3. Respondent BCCI, as its name sugges...

Brahmanand Himghar Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN110

Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.1. This mandamus appeal is directed against the order dated 28th December, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 1694 of 2004 thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.2. The appellants' case before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant No. 1 is a small-scale cold storage project, which started its business on and from 01.03.2000. Pursuant to the National Policy to withdraw sales tax related incentive, the State Government started a new incentive scheme with effect from 1st January, 2000 (to be referred as scheme of 2000) in supersession of the West Bengal Incentive Scheme of 1999. The said new scheme of 2000 was published in the Official Gazette of 14th February, 2001; the duration of the scheme being five years and the same would be available till 31st December, 2004. Under the provisions of the scheme of 1999 and 2000, the nature of the business carried on by the appellant No. 1 was not enlisted in the...

Murshad Nawaz Vs. Mst. Mumtaz Begum

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN817

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 24th March, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Sealdah in Ejectment Suit No. 360 of 2004 at the instance of the defendant/petitioner.2. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent, causing damages to the suit premises and also for reasonable requirement of the plaintiff and the members of the plaintiffs family.3. In such a suit, the petitioner filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for determination of his arrear of rent and for allowing him to deposit the determined amount by instalments.4. The learned Trial Judge held in the order impugned that the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent since July, 1980 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Thus, the learned Trial Judge calculated the...