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.
Sunanda Sarma and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT426(HC),2008(2)CHN4
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in substance, for a direction on the learned District Judge at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, to release the money lying deposited with him in connection with Original Suit No. 53 of 1944, in favour of the heirs and legal representatives of S.K. Ghosh, since deceased.2. S.K. Ghosh, since deceased, was a member of the Indian Civil Service. While he was posted as Chief Refugee Administrator of the Burma Refugee Organisation, he was suspended for alleged embezzlement of the funds of the State in his official capacity and a proceeding under the Criminal Law Amended Ordinance, 1944 was started, inter alia, on the allegation that his assets exceeded his income. All his assets were attached and a Receiver was appointed in respect of his properties.3. Ultimately, the matter went to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India, inter alia, directed that an amount of Rs. 30 lakh w...
Niren Moitra and anr. Vs. Protap Kumar Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2142
ORDERArunabha Basu, J.1. The revisional application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed for quashing the proceeding being Complaint Case No. 56/2004 under Section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code now pending before the Court of learned 5th Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore.2. Petitioners herein are arrayed as accused in connection with the said case, as mentioned above. The petitioners are facing trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code and from the certified copies of the order annexed along with the application, it appears that the case is now pending at a stage for evidence before charge.3. It is the contention of the petitioners that opposite party No. 1 is a practising advocate at Alipore. The said opposite party No. 1 was professionally engaged by the petitioners in connection with ULC Case No. 6(1)/18/V-17/76. The said opposite party No. 2 instituted the complaint case under challen...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mcc Investment and Leasing Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)217CTR(Cal)482,[2009]315ITR276(Cal)
1. After hearing Mr. Ghaffar, learned advocate for the petitioner and perusing the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the grounds stated in the petition. Accordingly, the delay is coridoned and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being GA No. 3752 of 2007 is disposed of.2. We now take up the application for admission of the appeal. We have perused the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The only question arose in this matter is, whether the AO was right in charging interest under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961 (sic-Interest-tax Act, 1974) because the assessment was made after invoking the provision of Section 19 of the Act, and Sub-section (4) of Section 12A [sic-Section 12] of the Act does not provide for charging any interest in consequence of an assessment made in pursuance of an order under Section 19 of the Act and/or under Sections 263 and 264 of the Act [sic-Income-tax Act, 1961, inasmuch as no interest was charged in course of regul...
Fiona Ray Vs. Sipra Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN402
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against two orders being Order No. 1 dated 29th September, 2007 and Order No. 2 dated 1st October, 2007 both passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Barackpore in Misc. Appeal No. 86 of 2007.2. The defendant/respondent in the said appeal is the petitioner before this Court.3. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit for declaration of title and for injunction before the learned Trial Judge. In the said suit, the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, praying for temporary injunction.4. Since the prayer for ad interim injunction of the plaintiffs/appellants/ opposite parties was rejected by the learned Trial Judge, the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed the aforesaid appeal before the learned Additional District Judge at Barackpore.5. The said appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal N...
Ram Chandra Prasad Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Kolkata Metropolitan D ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal100,(2008)2CALLT197(HC)
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. In this appeal the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th of January, 2007 passed by the Learned single Judge in G.A. No. 79 of 2007 arising out of W.P. No. 604 of 2006.The appellant is a practicing advocate of this Court. He has been pursuing this litigation since 26th of September, 1988. The grievance* is that he ought to be allotted a residential plot in East Calcutta Area Development Project, Phase-1 (hereinafter referred to as the Project). His claim has been successively rejected by the Executive as well as this High Court in a number of proceedings to which we shall make a reference presently.2. The pleaded case of the appellant is that in February, 1987 applications were invited from the public for an allotment of residential plots in the Project. The applicants were to be divided into 4 categories based on income. The appellant had submitted the applications for a residential plot reserved for Higher Income Group category (HUG). There were ...
Bhabani Mukherjee and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN1012,2008CriLJ2718
ORDERPartha Sakha Datta, J.1. Two petitioners pray for quashing of the proceeding of Kotshila R.P.F. Post case No. 2 of 2006 dated 25-8-2006 under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (for short, the Act) pending before the learned CJM, Purlia. What is further challenged is the order dated 26th August, 2006 passed by the learned CJM, Purlia issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioners.2. It has been contended in the application that the materials seized by the RPF Personnel from the factory premises of the petitioners were legally purchased by the petitioners and there is no reason to believe that they were stolen or unlawfully obtained. Section 5 of the Act makes the offence non-cognizable in nature, while Section 8 thereof postulates arrest of a person without warrant and Section 10 postulates obtaining search which was done warrant by the RPF authorities before conducting search which was done in violation of the provision of Section 10 of the Ac...
Pankaj Keshan and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN130
Arunabha Basu, J.1. The revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash the Special Case No. 4 of 2006 arising out of Domjur Police Station Case No. 102 of 2005 dated 22.4.2005 under Sections 5, 7, 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. In this case, chargesheet is already submitted against the petitioners.3. In view of the direction passed by this Court on earlier occasion, learned Advocate for the State produced the case diary. From the copy of FIR available in the case diary, it appears that Inspector of Police, D.O. II, lodged an information before the Domjur Police Station. In terms of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for adulteration of edible oils of various types. On receipt of FIR the case being crime case No. 102 dated 22.4.2005 was registered at Domjur Police Station and investigation was conducted by the police.4. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was submitte...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Mostafizor Rahaman and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)CHN89
ORDERWhereas it has come to the notice of the Government in the School Education Department that a difficulty has arisen in implementing the provision of procedure (5) issued under notification No. 14-SE(S)/IS-6/97, dated 8th January, 1998 for selection of candidates in the case of filling up of short-term vacancies in the High school/Higher Secondary School/High Madrasah:And Whereas it has become expedient to remove the difficulty as aforesaid:Now, Therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by procedure (8) of the procedure for selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers of Schools recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education or the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education or the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education, as the case may be, the Governor is pleased hereby to decide as follows:(i) The Managing Committee/Ad-hoc Committee or Administrator of the School shall invite applications through PUBLIC NOTICE BOARD of the concerned school,...
Amar Nath Pramanick Vs. Sanjib Das Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN962
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a landlord in a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th August, 1999 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 219 of 1991 thereby dismissing the suit on the ground of absence of valid notice of ejectment upon all the tenants.The learned Trial Judge, however, found that the plaintiff otherwise proved reasonable requirement.2. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present first appeal.3. It appears from the record that the plaintiff, a subsequent purchaser from the previous landlord, filed the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement against one Salil Kumar Dasgupta by describing him as the sole tenant in respect of the tenanted property. There is no dispute that when the plaintiff purchased the property from the previous landlord, a suit for eviction against the ...
Palash Banerjee Vs. Chandanbati Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT549(HC)
1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.2. Challenging the judgment and order dated 26th June, 2007 passed by the learned trial Judge in WP 8431(W) of 2007, this appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant.3. The application for stay, being C.A.N. 8857 of 2007, has been moved today. From the very nature of the stay application, we are of the view that in deciding the stay application the entire appeal could be considered and disposed of an merit. Hence the appeal is also taken up as on day's list for final hearing.4. All formalities stand dispensed with as all parties are appearing before us.5. In the writ application the factual matrix is to this effect.6. The petitioner admittedly suffered an order of suspension issued under Clause 16(b) of the West Bengal Co-operative Society Rules, 1987 in terms of the appendix to chapter VII relating to conditions of service due to his implication in a criminal offence which at the material time was at the investiga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »