Kolkata Court August 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.
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Biswanath Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN975,2007CriLJ4128
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. On December 19, 1974 the respondent No. 1 was detained under MISA. His detention was continued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA'). The reason for detention as appears from the record was that the respondent No. 1 in active connivance with his brother who was staying at London at the material' point of time was illegally dealing in foreign exchange. The allegation against the respondent No. 1 was that he used to arrange tours as travel agent of foreign nationals and/or persons coming after by the respondents No. 1 in India. The entire expenses were borne by him. In turn, his brother was receiving the expenses of such tour in foreign currency at London. Such transaction was illegal under the provisions of COFEPOSA. He challenged the order of detention. However, he was unsuccessful. He filed a habeas corpus petition before the Division Bench which was...
R.K. Refineries and Metal (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. General Manager, India ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN18
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.1. The writ application being C.O. No. 21825 (W) of 1995 filed by the petitioners praying for a declaration that C.N. Dross comes under sub-heading No. 2620.00 of Chapter 26 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and it comes within the purview of exemption of Central Excise Duty in terms of Notification No. 19/88/CE dated March 1, 1988 as amended by Notification No. 27/91/CE dated July 25, 1991. In the writ application there is a further prayer for a direction upon the respondent authority to refund the excise duty paid by the petitioner towards the Central Excise Duty.2. The writ application being No. 21826(W) of 1995 filed for a declaration clarifying that the CN Dross comes under sub-heading No. 2620.00 of Chapter 26 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and it comes within the purview of exemption of Central Excise Duty in terms of Notification No. 19/88/CE dated March 1, 1988 as amended by Notification No. 27/91/CE dated July...
Manoshi Mohalanobish Vs. K.M.C. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN924
Re: C.A.N. No. 5348 of 20071. This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 17843(W) of 2003 whereby and whereunder the said learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.2. The appellant/writ petitioner herein is the owner of a flat in Neelachal Abasan Co-operative Society Ltd. within Kolkata Municipal Corporation area. The said appellant/writ petitioner is aggrieved by the hearing notices issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities on the ground that the said hearing notices are not only vague and ambiguous but also the same do not disclose any reason for assessing the annual valuation for different period in respect of the flat in question.3. From the records we find that three hearing notices were issued stimultaneously by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities to the appellant herein for the said ...
Anjuman Tea Company Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN1061
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Satrajit Sinha Roy, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State as well as Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Provident Fund Authorities.2. The only point that arises for consideration in this criminal revision, whether a case registered under Sections 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code against the employer for non-depositing the employees' contribution to provident fund deducted from the wages payable to the employee is liable to be quashed, on subsequent deposit of the said amount.3. Mr. Sinha Roy, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out before this Court that an FIR has been lodged alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners, the company as well as its three Directors for non-depositing a sum of Rs. 13,73,978/- w...
Rajorshi De Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN827
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the pnrties.2. Challenging the judgment and order dated 17.1.07, passed by the learned Trial Judge in W.P. No. 62 of 2004, this present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. This case has a chequered history which requires a reference for adjudication of this appeal. This writ petitioner moved a writ application being W.P. No. 2472 of 1998 on the grievance that a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding the respondent Calcutta University authority as well as the authority of the concerned Medical College to award average marks in the internal assessment of the papers Anatomy and Bid-Chemistry on the basis of the marks as obtained in the theory examination, oral examination and practical examination of those relevant subjects of the First MBBS Supplementary Examination, 1997 and thereby to direct the respondents to allow his continuation of study in third year MBBS class and to appear in both practical and ...
Narayan Chandra Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Cal298
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the writ-petitioner and is directed against a common judgment dated June 22, 2007 passed by a learned single Judge by which two different writ applications filed by the present appellant were disposed of. By the first writ application. The writ petitioner challenged the order dated 21st March, 2006 passed by the respondent thereby making a provisional assessment for payment of Rs. 2,85,406/- in terms of the Electricity Act, 2003 on the allegation of pilferage of electricity and by the other one, the final order of assessment subsequently passed by the respondents was challenged.2. As a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents as regards maintainability of the present mandamus-appeal on the ground that two different mandamus-appeals ought to have been preferred, we disposed of such preliminary point by directing the appellant to pay additional Court fees for challenging orders passed in two writ-a...
Subhash Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN1040
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. In this application the petitioners pray for quashing of proceeding pending before the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Bankura, in connection with Bankura Police Station Case No. 201 of 2006 dated 31.8.2006 under Sections 135(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the Electricity Act, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 571 of 2006 on the ground that no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Electricity Act, 2003 on the basis of a complaint lodged by police officer or on the basis of a police report.3. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners drawing my attention to Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 submits that in connection with the case, Chargesheet No. 244 of 2006 was submitted before the learned Judge, 3rd Special Court, Bankura on 30.9.2006 under Sections 135(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the Electricity Act, 2003 whereupon on 12.10.2006 the learned Judge, Bankura took cognizance of an offence. It is su...
MohsIn Ali and anr. Vs. Wakf Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)3CALLT334(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The two petitioners in this writ petition dated September 29th, 2003 are aggrieved by the order of the Wakf Tribunal, West Bengal dated July 22nd, 2003 dismissing their appeal against the decision of the Board of Wakf, West Bengal dated August 19th, 2002 removing them from the office of mutawalli.2. By a deed executed in 1937 the wakf, a wakf alal nalad was created by three persons: Haji Samsher Ali Mondal, Haji Ershad Ali Mondal and Musammat Rojan Bibi. Subsequently the deed was amended by further deeds executed in 1940 and 1962. While the first petitioner took charge of the office of the mutawalli in 1969, the second petitioner took charge thereof in 1979. In terms of the deed creating the wakf two persons were to hold the office of the mutawalli jointly.3. The fourth respondent (Muhammad Asgar Ali) is a descendant of Hazi Samsher Ali Mondal, one of the wakifs. In 1999 he made certain complaints alleging that the affairs of the wakf were being mismanaged by...
Debadas Biswas Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Cal29
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. By this writ petition dated February 4th, 2005 the petitioner prayed for a mandamus directing the first and second respondents (the second respondent is an officer of the first respondent) to supply him electricity at his residence.2. On November 29th, 2004 the petitioner applied for supply of electricity. His application was to be considered by the first respondent in terms of the provisions in Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. By a letter dated January 13th, 2005 the second respondent informed him that in the face of objection by one Bijoli Manna and for his failure to establish that he was a lawful occupier of the premises in question, there was no scope to give him new connection. Feeling aggrieved he took out the writ petition, which was disposed of by an order dated March 14th, 2005 directing the first respondent to give the connection. Consequently the connection was given. The third, fourth and fifth respondents (Anjali Metia, Bijeli Manna...
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Vs. Buxa Dooars Tea ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: [2008]142CompCas595(Cal)
Patherya, J.1. This is an application for a direction upon the official liquidator to disclaim and make over possession of the second floor of premises No. 31, B.B.D. Bagh (South), Kolkata-700 001 to the applicant by removal of padlock.Petitioner's case:2. The case of the petitioner is that a tenancy was given to Buxa Dooars Tea Company (India) Ltd. ('Company'). By a notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the tenancy was terminated and C.S. No. 1 of 2005 filed for eviction of the company. A decree for eviction was passed on an application under Chapter XIII-A of the Original Side Rules upon contest and in appeal filed, a conditional order of stay was granted. During the subsistence of the appeal the order of winding up dated March 1, 2006, was passed on the application of a petitioning creditor and the official liquidator took possession of the said tenanted office space. Although directions were given to the official liquidator to shift the goods from t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »