Kolkata Court December 2008 Judgments

Asit Baran Ghosh Vs. Sales Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)25VST143(NULL)

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length.2. This is an application filed by the petitioner against a judgment dated July 18, 2008 See page 124 Supa passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. RN 387 of 2007.3. The only question that arises in this application is that if the dealer has failed to comply with the provisions in Sub-section (2) of Section 23, he would not get any benefit to register as dealer under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in question from the date of the application which he has filed. Incidentally, it is admitted that there was a default on the part of the petitioner to apply under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 for registration of the said VAT Act. According to Sub-section (2) of Section 23, it amply clarifies that a dealer is required to make an application from the date of incurring liability to pay tax under the VAT Act and such application shall be filed from the date of ni...

Kanchilal Paul Vs. Sasthi Charan Banerjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th March, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court, Barasat, in Title Suit No. 123 of 1999, thereby dismissing the suit on the sole ground that the agreement for sale was written on insufficiently stamped paper and as such, on the basis of such an agreement, no decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge, however, decided all other issues in favour of the plaintiff on merit. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the subsequent purchasers, however, have filed a cross-objection thereby disputing the findings of the learned Trial Judge on all other issues decided in favour of the plaintiff.2. The case made out by the plaintiff may be summed up thus:a) The suit property consists of 7 cottahs and 7 1/2 chitaks of land with an old structure with the existing tenant...

Smt. Brinda Routh and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2010ACJ377

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against the award dated 29th June, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burdwan, in M.A.C. Case No. 85 of 2004 thereby disposing of the said proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,60,500/- to the claimants to be paid by the United India Insurance Company Ltd.2. Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.3. There is no dispute that the victim was the 'Khalasi' of an oil- tanker which collided with a lorry resulting in his death. In the claim-application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants, his heirs and legal representatives, however, made the owner of the oil- tanker and its insurer as parties to the proceedings without impleading either the owner or the insurer of the lorry as parties. The claimants alleged that the victim used to earn Rs. 3,000/- a month, as an employee,...

Visva Bharati and ors. Vs. Baidya Nath Saha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009(1)CHN106

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The appellants say that the Court in exercise of its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not issue a writ of mandamus commanding an appointment to be given to a person initiating the writ proceedings. In isolation, the contention appears to be reasonable and is the generally accepted norm.2. The appellant university sought applications for a post reserved for Scheduled Castes in the year 2003. On June 11, 2003 the first respondent-writ petitioner was called for an interview. Till or about 2006 no appointment was made and on a query from the writ petitioner the appellant university cited the failure of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to respond to a clarification sought by the university as the reason for the delay in appointment. It transpires that on February 26, 2006 the Selection Committee - comprising eminent personnel - forwarded a resolution. There is a dispute as to the tenor and interpretation of the resolution. The initial ...

Birbhum District Primary School Council and anr. Vs. Md. Mokhtar Hossa ...

Court: Kolkata

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. A clause in the applicable rules relating to suspension of a primary school teacher falls for consideration in this appeal. The appellants are aggrieved by the order allowing the writ petition without calling for any affidavits and insist that the matter is of some significance on a point of principle.2. Following a criminal complaint against him, the writ petitioner - a head teacher at the Kubra Primary School under the Birbhum District Primary School Council - was arrested and produced before the sub-divisional judicial magistrate in Rampurhat on August 6, 2002. He remained in detention thereafter and was enlarged on bail on November 11, 2002. On November 1, 2002 the chairman of the District Primary School Council issued a letter of suspension citing the petitioner's detention in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours and the chairman's authority under a notification of February 5, 1977 to issue the order of suspension. The order of suspension continued despite...