Kolkata Court January 2008 Judgments

Shri Anil Kumar Majumdar Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT260(HC)

Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 482, 401 of the Cr.PC has been filed by the present petitioner praying for quashing of the entire proceedings pending before the learned Judge, Special Court, Nadia at Krishnanagar, Fast Track Court, 1st Court-in-charge in Case No. I.E. 241 of 2004 corresponding to Nakashipara P.S. Case No. 185 of 2004 dated 02.08.2004 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.2. The case of the petitioner herein, in short, is that he has one small business unit viz. Ice-cream Factory bearing Service Connection No. A/4214/1. Consumer No. E-300063. The petitioner used to pay the amount of electric consumption bill regularly. The Station Manager of Bethuadahari Group Electric Supply called the petitioner to his office on 25.07.2004. Accordingly the petitioner met him in his office. The Station Manager demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards the subscription of Biswakarma Puja to be held in the o...

Tandon Brothers Vs. Rajesh Pandey and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN253

Dipankar Datta, J.1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence has filed the present application seeking leave of Court to intervene in CPAN No. 1608 of 2006, being an application filed by the petitioner alleging contempt of the order dated 26.8.1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing C.O. No. 10642(W) of 1986, operative part whereof reads as follows:In view of above, the law in this regard has been set at rest, by the Supreme Court by this time that if the authority intends to acquire the property, the authority cannot remain idle for indefinite by passing the order of requisition and continue the same and, as such, the second writ petition is entitled to succeed to this extent that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued against the Union of India, Deputy Director, Military Land and Cantonments, Eastern Command (ML & C) Fort William, Calcutta, being respondent No. 6 and other appropriate authorities by commanding them to take steps for ac...

Manoranjan Samaddar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1117]

K.J. Sengupta and Prasenjit Mandal, JJ.1. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal and heard Mr. Roy Chowdhury and Mr. Basu in this matter. We are of the view that the order of the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference on the basis of materials placed before the learned Tribunal for the reasons stated hereunder.2. The applicant through intervention of the Court got the order of promotion from the post of Excise Constable to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Excise Department. After haying obtained the order of promotion, the applicant claimed for ante dating of the promotion, at least at par with Sri Bijay Kumar Bittal and Amarendranath Mandal, who were described by the applicant to be juniors in the order of promotion.3. So, the applicant filed a writ petition before this Court and in that writ petition prayer for ante-dating of promotion, vis-a-vis, fixing seniority at par with the said two persons was made. The said writ pet...

Smt. Mala Banerjee Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(1)CHN979

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this public interest litigation, the writ-petitioner, claiming to be a social worker, has prayed for the following relief:(a) A writ of and/or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith withdraw, cancel and rescind:(i) The Rule dated 29th July, 2003 which has been published on 30th July, 2003 in the Kolkata Gazette;(ii) Notification and/or Office Memo No. 2S-30/2003-04/2736 (21)E dated 21st November, 2003 being Annexure 'P-4' hereto;(iii) Circular/Memo No. 2S-30/03-04/3369(20) dated 20th January, 2004 being Annexure 'P-6' hereto;and all licences issued through out the State of West Bengal pursuant to and in furtherance of the above mentioned Notifications and Memos since January, 2004; (b) A writ of and/or a writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents and each of them, their men, agents and subordinates to certify and transmit the records relating to the case to this Hon'ble Court for doing conscionable justice...

Feegrade and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ind Synergy Limited and ors.

Court: Kolkata

1. These appeals have been filed against an order passed by the learned single Judge on 24th of December 2007 in writ petition No. 1387 of 2007 granting an interim order in terms of prayer [f] of the writ petition for a period of three weeks after reopening or until further orders, whichever is earlier. Thereafter the matter has been directed to be listed before the regular Bench on 22nd January 2008. 2. Yesterday, a mentioning was made of all these appeals so that the same can be heard today. In view of the request made by the learned Counsel for the appeals, this Bench had directed that the appeals be set down for hearing today. 3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Ashok Banerjee as well as Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioners herein have made a statement that they have instructions from their clients to withdraw the writ petition. It is also submitted that the writ petition is to come up for hearing tomorrow...

Mathur Sao Vs. Champaklata Sen and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)1CALLT222(HC),2008(2)CHN278

Biswanath Somadder, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the defendant No. 1/petitioner primarily against the plaintiff/ opposite party No. 1. The impugned order is an order dated 23rd July, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Purulia, rejecting the application of the defendant No. 1 filed under the provisions of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Against the said impugned order the defendant No. 1/petitioner has preferred the instant application and prays before this Court that the said order be set aside.2. From the records it appears that the decree holder had filed a Title Execution Case being No. 15 of 1986 to recover khas possession of the decretal property and earlier another miscellaneous case was filed by the Judgment debtor praying for dismissal of the execution case.3. Upon perusing the order of the learned executing Court it appears that the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedu...

Mahesh Agarwal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)ARBLR173(Cal),(2008)1CALLT291(HC),2008(2)CHN696; 2008(2)CLJ279

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Judgment and order dated March 2, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Darjeeling in Civil Revision Case No. 5 of 2005 affirming order Nos. 29 and 30 both dated April 18, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Siliguri, District : Darjeeling, in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2004 arising out of Title Suit No. 224 of 2003 of the said Court.2. The facts material for disposal of this revisional application are as under:(a) Indian Oil Corporation ('IOL' in short) appointed Agarwal Trading Company, a proprietorship firm, as its retail outlet dealer for sales of petrol, high speed diesel and other allied petroleum products for Joratham in the state of Sikkim.(b) Parties entered into an agreement on February 18, 1970. For the purpose of this revisional application we are concerned with the Clauses 21 and 22 of the said agreement.Under the said Clause 21 any dis...

Anita Kundu Vs. Supreme Leasing Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN139

Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. By this revisional application prayer has been made for quashing of ,a criminal case being Complaint Case No. 6368 of 2003 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta on the ground that the case is hot a genuine one, intended only to harass the petitioner.2. I have heard Mr. Abhijit Addhya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya and Mr. Indrajit Adhikari, learned Advocates appearing for the opposite party No. 1. In the petition of complaint it was averred that the accused-petitioner who is a proprietor of M/s. Anita Enterprises issued a cheque in favour of the complainant on 07.07.2003 for Rs. 30,500/- drawn on Hawrah Gramin Bank, Batora Branch to discharge an existing liability arising out of a lease agreement entered into by and between the complainant and the accused. The cheque was presented for encashment but was dishonoured through a returned memo of the bank on...

Jagdev Prasad Bajaj and ors. Vs. Tirrihanah Co. Ltd. (No. 1)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2009]148CompCas166(Cal)

Patherya, J.1. This is an application filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956. The case of the petitioner is that for price of goods, sold and delivered bills were raised for a sum of Rs. 11,19,975 on the company. Against the said bills part payment of Rs. 8,63,126 was made and after giving credit for such payment, a sum of Rs. 2,56,849 remains outstanding and payable by the company to the petitioner. Neither the bills nor the goods have been disputed by the company and for non-payment during the stipulated time, statutory notice was issued on August 13, 2007. The said notice though received by the company was not replied to. By non-payment the company has evidenced its inability to pay its debts ; hence the instant application has been filed.2. None appears on behalf of the company in spite of service.3. Having considered the facts of the case, the winding up petition is admitted for a sum of Rs. 2,56,849. The company is directed to pay the said sum in four in...