Kolkata Court February 2008 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.
Md. IslamuddIn Khan Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT130(HC),2008(3)CHN186
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.2. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows:At the time when the writ petitioner/appellant was working as Assistant Grade II (Depot) under the respondents-authorities, a charge-sheet dated 18th April 1999 was issued against the appellant and such charge-sheet contained charges of mis-appropriation of stocks by the appellant in connivance with other staff for pecuniary gains, failure to discharge duties honestly and faithfully contravening certain regulations of the F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations 1971 (as amended) on the part of the appellant and the appellant's failure to maintain proper depot records.For a better appreciation of the said charges, the same are quoted below:Article of Charge Framed Against Md.islamuddin Khan, Ag.II (Depot) ARDC, Khagrabari, Coochbehar Under District Manager, FCL, Coochbehar. Now Posted Under Dist. Manager (PD), FCI.Article No. I3. Md. Islamuddin Khan, Asstt. Gr. II (Dep...
Salil Das and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT208(HC)
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22nd May, 2003, and 23rd May, 2003, passed by Sri T.K. Gupta, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Howrah, in Sessions Trial Case No. 178 of 2002 convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. By the order dated 23rd May, 2003, both the convicts appellants were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. No separate punishment for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC was, however, inflicted.2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that on 21st May, 2002 the accused Salil Das and the accused Mahela Bibi along with her husband the deceased Fakir came to the house of Sufal Sarkar. After taking dinner, these thre...
The Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. the Income Ta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT391(HC),(2009)225CTR(Cal)67
Aniruddha Bose, J.1. The petitioners are a residuary non-banking company, and claims to be engaged in the business of offering small saving schemes to the public at large. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge an order passed by the Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of Section 245B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the petitioners' application for settlement. I shall henceforth refer to this statute as 'the Act'. This order has been passed on 31st May 2007 but the petitioners claim to have received the order on 14th June 2007.2. The settlement application relates to three assessment years being 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The petitioners had filed their return on income under the relevant provisions of the Act for the aforesaid three assessment years before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3, Calcutta, who is impleaded as the respondent No. 3 in this writ petition. The said respondent had issued notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2...
Malati Chandra and ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Debnath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN1
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal against judgment and decree dated December 22, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 33 of 1993.2. The said suit was for pre-emption and was valued at Rs. 30,010/- (Rupees thirty thousand and ten) only.3. The learned Civil judge by his said judgment and decree dismissed the said suit on contest with costs and, further, directed the plaintiff to pay additional Court-fees on Rs. 1,39,990/- (Rupees one lac thirty-nine thousand nine hundred ninety) only. The learned Judge, inter alia, held that the valuation of the suit property at Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy thousand) only, as on January 1, 1993, as mentioned in Exhibit-4, was reasonable as the defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit property, the suit ought to have been valued not less than at Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees one lac seventy thousand) only. He, therefore, held that the defendant was liable to pay Court-fees on ...
State of West Bengal Vs. Aftab @ Aftab Ansari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN127
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta rejecting the prayer of the investigating agency for police remand of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in connection with G.R. 634/07 arising out of S. D/2 (Posta) Police Station Case No. 53 dated June 2, 2007 under Section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1B)/27 of the Arms Act, the State preferred the instant criminal revisional application.2. The facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:Posta Police Station Case No. 53 dated June 2, 2007, under Section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1B)/27 of the Arms Act was registered following the incident of a dacoity took place at a broad day light in a busy business area of Calcutta on June 2, 2007 at about 3.00 hours. When at the point of firearms a group of dacoits looted away a cash of Rs. 3.17 lakhs and mobile phones from a wholesale saree shop, Rathi Fancy Saree situated at Kalakar Street, Calcu...
Durga Pada Sahoo Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN412
Soumitra Pal, J.1. Let affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the records.2. In the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the Commercial Tax Officer, Tamluk Charge Office, Purba Medinipur, the respondent No. 3 in refusing to issue 'C' form subject to the payment of Value Added Tax under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('WBVAT Act' for short) @ 4% as the goods are exempted from tax under Section 21 of the said Act.3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents submits that since WBVAT Act is a specified Act under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 the Taxation Tribunal has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is argued that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : [1997]228ITR725(SC) . The petitioner, if aggrieved, is at liberty to move before the Tribunal.4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the High Court cannot ...
Basudev Singh Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT506(HC),2008(3)CHN844
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dated 23rd August, 2004 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner claiming appointment on compensatory grounds has been dismissed. The admitted facts are that the father of the petitioner retired from service of the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. on 25th March, 1983. During his lifetime he married twice and he contracted the second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife. The petitioner/appellant is the son of the second wife. After retirement, the father of the petitioner died. During his lifetime the appellant had nominated his second wife as the legal heir. For the aforesaid purpose the mother of the appellant was medically examined and found to be fit for employment in the year 1983. She was, therefore, selected for appointment. However, no letter of appointment was actually issued. The father of the appellant filed a writ petition in the year 1998 ...
Kabita Sit Vs. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT79(HC)
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, Managing Committee of the School.2. Despite several directions on diverse dates directing writ petitioner/appellant/opposite party to file affidavit-in-opposition, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. The first order was passed on 28th September, 2007 directing to file affidavit-in-opposition. Time to file opposition was extended by the order dated 12th October, 2007. As no opposition had been filed, again direction for opposition was granted on 7th December, 2007 and lastly on 25th January, 2008. As no opposition has been filed till date, we have no basis of the application as has been filed. Furthermore, from the documentary evidence as annexed in this application relating to the departmental proceeding it appears that this application could be disposed of on the basis of the documents as filed. Initially, a writ application was moved being W.P. No. 1845 of 1996 assailing the departmental proceeding as initiat...
Smt. Rinku Mondal (Biswas) and Smt. Sarifunnessa Vs. Union of India (U ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT439(HC),2008(3)CHN602
1. When this appeal was called out, Mr. Indranil Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submitted that he is pressing this Appeal only qua the Appellant No. 1 [i.e. Smt. Rinku Mondal Biswas], He states that he is not pressing the Appeal on behalf of the Appellant No. 2 (Smt. Sarifunnessa).2. The facts of this case are that the two Appellants/Petitioners (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Appellants had come to this Court in a Writ Petition which was registered as W.P. 4953(W) of 2002, making a grievance that after having been selected as Anganwari Workers vide letter dated 15.11.2001 and after having been appointed on the basis of Appointment letter issued on the same day, the Respondents thereafter issued an Order on 03.01.2002 being in the nature of a Notice informing them, inter alia, that they had suppressed their educational qualifications and as such, they were required to show cause as to why their services should no be terminated.3. The ...
Heinz Italia S.R.L and anr. Vs. Dabur India Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN682,2008(38)PTC652(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. A Supreme Court order passed in a suit filed elsewhere by the plaintiffs against the first defendant in respect of the packaging for the same product used earlier by the first defendant, is cited as the basis for seeking an interlocutory injunction in the present suit.2. The first plaintiff as assignee of the trademark 'Glucon-D' is the proprietor of the mark which is registered in class 30 in respect of glucose for food, flour and preparations made from cereals and the like. The label is also registered in class 30. The second plaintiff is a subsidiary of the first plaintiff and has been permitted by the first plaintiff to use the word and label marks in the country. The second plaintiff manufactures and markets what it claims to be an instant energy drink under the said word and label marks. The plaintiffs claim that such product has been marketed in India for at least four decades. The products come in three variants: in regular, tangy orange and lemony lime fl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »