Kolkata Court January 2008 Judgments

Sri R. Kunjan Pillai Vs. Smt. Ranibala Dinda and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)1CALLT357(HC),2008(2)CHN678

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. By the impugned order two applications filed by the respective parties were disposed of by the learned Trial Judge. The defence of the defendant against eviction was struck out on the plaintiff's application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Simultaneously the defendant's application for correction of Challan was also allowed by the learned Trial Judge.2. The defendant/petitioner is aggrieved against that part of the impugned order by which his defence against delivery of possession under Section 17(3) of the said Act was struck out.3. Hence the instant revisional application was filed by the defendant/petitioner herein.4. Since the defendant/petitioner did not deposit the rent of the suit premises for the current months from October 1999 to December 2003 in the name of all the heirs of the original landlord since deceased even after their substitution in the suit, the instant application under Section 17(3) of the said Act ...

Sudakshina Ghosh Vs. Arunangshu Chakraborty (Uday)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN133,2008CriLJ1697

ORDERJyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The propriety of an order dated 5th June, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, at Barasat in Mat. Suit No. 133 of 2001, is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Judge on the husband's application under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code. A confusion arose as to whether such an order is revisable by this Hon'ble Court in its Civil Revisional Jurisdiction or in its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, as two different Benches differed from each other as to the entertainability of this application on the said issue.3. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya was of the view that since the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Judge in exercise of his power under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such an order is not revisable by this Court in its Civil Revisional Jurisdiction. Accordin...

Dinabandhu Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT74(HC),2008(2)CHN713

Dipankar Datta, J.The Judgment of the Court was as follows:1. Name of the petitioner, along with others, was sponsored by the concerned employment exchange for consideration in connection with recruitment to the post of Sahayak in Ghonga Gram Panchayat within Purullia II Development Block. It is claimed by the petitioner that on the basis of the test/examination conducted by the selectors, he secured the first position in the panel. It is further claimed by him that he had truly and correctly filled up the verification roll; yet, the respondents are sitting tight and have not offered him appointment.2. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withholding the offer of appointment, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for a direction on the District Magistrate, Purulia and ex-officio Member Secretary of the concerned District Level Selection Committee, respondent No. 3 to offer appointment to him. Column 14 of the verification roll filled up by the ...

Zorina Khatun Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)3CALLT331(HC),2008(3)CHN611

Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This letters patent appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 22nd July, 2003. We may notice the relevant facts as pleaded by the petitioner.3. In July, 1997 a vacancy arose in the post of Assistant Teacher (Arabic) at the Rampurhat Jitendra Lal Vidyabhaban School, the respondent No. 5 herein. The petitioner who possesses a degree of B.A. in Arabic applied for the aforesaid post. The advertisement was issued by the school on 15th September, 1997 without any direction having been issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Birbhum according permission to fill the vacancy. The petitioner appeared for the interview on 9th November, 1997. She was selected and appointed by the school authorities on a temporary basis at a salary of Rs. 600/- per month for a purely temporary tenure of three months. On 17th November, 1997 she joined in the aforesaid ...

Indian Merchantile Agency and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Admini ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN813,[2008(117)FLR364]

Soumitra Pal, J.1. In the writ application the petitioner No. 1 a customs house agent, is an unregistered partnership firm. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. The petitioners have challenged the establishment circular No. 206/2007 dated 22nd December, 2007 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Administration), Customs House, Kolkata, respondent No. 1 suspending the petitioner No. 1 with immediate effect principally on the ground that it does not contain the reasons or grounds for such suspension. The impugned circular is as under:Heads of different Departments of this Customs House and other concerned departments are hereby informed that due to alleged misconduct, in exercise of power vested in me under Regulation 20 of CHALE '04, the CHA licence bearing 1-20 of M/s. India Mercantile Agency, a custom house agent is suspended with immediate effect.(Emphasis supplied)2. It appears from the impugned circular that suspension has been carried out under Regulation 20 of the Custo...

R.V. Palega and anr. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN768

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The petitioner moved this application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the Jorabagan Police Station Case No. 126 dated 14/11/2006, under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and the result of investigation on the grounds as follows:(a) Although both the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been described as the partners of a firm M/s. Metco Export International while the petitioner No. 2 is one of the partner but the same is not correct so far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned.(b) In the complaint although it has been alleged that a sum of Rs. 10,58,939/- was the outstanding but according to the admission of the complainant in his lawyer's notice, at best a sum of Rs. 3,58,939/- is due and payable.(c) There was a dispute going on by and between M/s. Metco Export International and M/s. Sandip Trading Company, the opposite party No. 2 and the same will be reflected from the letter of the petitioner dated March 21, 2005 and the instant...

Sonali Bank Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. This writ petition is at the instance of petitioner, Sonali Bank challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 16th November, 2006 whereby the Tribunal accepted the contention of the workmen regarding representation of the petitioner through a legal counsel under Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. In a reference dispute before the Tribunal the petitioner as management entered appearance through its engaged legal counsel and coming to know about this engagement the workmen raised objection by filing a petition and the Learned Tribunal by the order impugned in this writ petition observed that since the workmen did not give their consent to such engagement of legal counsel, under provisions of Section 36(4) of the Act Tribunal cannot allow the petitioner management to be represented by any legal counsel. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this order the present writ petition has been filed and the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petiti...

Dilip Kumar Das Vs. Bengal Hosiery House and ors.

Court: Kolkata

1. We have heard the counsel for the writ petitioner at length. By an order dated 5th of September, 2007 the learned Single Judge has observed as follows:Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the records.Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by 28th September, 2007. Reply, if any, by 5th October, 2007. Thereafter, parties are at liberty to mention for hearing upon notice. Since it has been alleged that the private responde4nt is obstructing in the free ingress and egress from the shop in question, let there be an interim order directing the Officer-in-Charge, Shyampukur Police Station, Kolkata, the respondent No. 2 to remove any obstruction in front of the shop and shall see that the respondent No. 5, his men and agents do not make any forcible entry and create obstruction in front of the shop thereby preventing the customers and visitors. Since it has been stated that the respondent No. 5 has been dismissed from service, the respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the respondent ...

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxe ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008BusLR303(NULL)

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. The writ petition has been directed against an order of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Learned Tribunal) dated August 10, 2007. 2. Facts of the case briefly are as follows:The petitioner is a public limited company having its unit at Kolkata, Pune and Cochin for preparing packet tea, blended tea and tea bags. According to the petitioner, the said units are 100% export oriented undertakings. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act). The petitioner purchased tea at Kolkata and Siliguri tea auctions through tea brokers. 3. West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 framed Rule 42 made pursuant to Section 17(3)(a)(xi) of the Act and Rule 81 made pursuant to Section 17(3)(3)(iii) of the Act which provided for exemption of tax on sales of tea at such auctions if such te...

Indian Record Manufacturing Company and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008(117)FLR164],(2008)IILLJ575Cal

Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. I have taken up this writ petition for disposal in presence of the learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the P.F. Authority.2. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the authority concerned did not apply its mind to calculate the interest component which is legally payable by the petitioners under Section 7(q) of the Act and the authority concerned also did not take into account the excess amount paid by the petitioner while determining the interest component payable by the petitioner.3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that although Section itself does not provide for any application of judicial mind, while computing the interest amount payable by a person under the Act, law demands that since the amount is the subject matter of objective satisfaction of the authority concerned, the authority must take into account all the applicable parameters which shall be produced by the person concerned, while c...