Kolkata Court May 2008 Judgments

Rejuanul Hoque Alias Mithun Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3468

ORDERPartha Sakha Datta, J.1. The question is whether on the day of the alleged incident which is 29th of July, 2006 the petitioner was major or minor. In the event of his being a minor on that date the case as against him would fall for enquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. In CRR No. 3760 of 2006 decided on 8-3-2007 Hon'ble Justice P. N. Sinha (as His Lordship then was) directed the learned Magistrate to hold an enquiry for ascertainment of the age of the accused on the date on the incident. But because of insufficiency of sufficient material, more particularly because of the entry in the Registration Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, in the Pass Certificate of the Madhyamik Examination issued by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal containing in both of them the date of birth and in the Certificate of Birth issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Bamongola Block, Malda alleged...

Arun Banerjee and ors. Vs. Baidya Nath Mullick and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)3CALLT338(HC)

Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.1. In this first appeal, the defendants/appellants have challenged the judgment and decree in the ejectment suit No. 680 of 1979 passed by the Judge, 11th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, decreeing the suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises.2. The plaintiffs/respondents' case in the Court below was as follows:The suit property consisting of three rooms with the bath and privy, situated in the ground floor of holding No. 9/1, Baburam Sil Lane, originally belonged to Golap Sundari Dasi, and Gunamayee Dasi and the plaintiffs are the heirs and owners of the suit premises by inheritance. The plaintiffs live in the first floor and second floor of the holding No. 9/1, Baburam Sil Lane, Calcutta and the adjacent three storied building under the holding No. 9/2 Baburam Sil Lane, Calcutta. The original defendant, the predecessor of the present appellants, was the premises tenant under them in respect of the suit premises at a monthly renta...

Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. the Birla Jute and Industri ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)3CALLT252(HC),[2008(119)FLR444],(2009)ILLJ785Cal

Manik Mohan Sarkar, J.1. This matter has been directed against the judgment and order dated November 13, 1997 passed by the learned Judge, Employees Insurance Court, West Bengal in Case No. 33 of 1988.2. In brief, the petitioner's case is that the Insurance Inspector of the petitioner Corporation visited the factory of opposite party at Birlapur, P.O. Birlapur within the District of 24-Parganas (South) in between the period from 17.6.1986 to 19.6.1986 for the purpose of inspection of records of the factory covering the period from June, 1984 to January, 1985 and reported that he found the employees of the said factory were paid overtime allowances for the period from 27.01.1985 to 31.3.1986 amount to Rs. 13,67,560.42 P. but the opposite parties did not pay any contribution on the said sum. an amount of Rs. 99,148/- being @ 7.25%.Petitioner Corporation issued letter vide No. C/Ins.-V/41-4203/978-79 dated 21.8.1986 to the opposite party requesting them to pay the amount of said contribut...

Chhotelal Choudhury and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN1060,2008CriLJ3655

ORDER1. By this application dated 12-9-2006 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. prayer is made for quashing of a proceeding being G.R. Case No. 240 of 2005 under Section 4(D) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Section 30 of the West Bengal Mines and Minerals Rules, 1973 and under Section 290/397/447 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the learned sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani in the District of Nadia.2. The de facto complainant who is the F.I.R. maker is an officer said to be authorised under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and an officer authorised by the Collector under Section 4(D) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. He lodged an F.I.R. with the Kalyani Police Station against the present petitioners alleging that they unauthorisedly extracted and removed 1,05,000 c.ft. of ordinary sand/ordinary clay/grave...

State of West Bengal Vs. Shaw Wallace and Company Limited

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN935

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Respondent was engaged in manufacturing of foreign liquor commonly known as Indian Made Foreign Liquor (hereinafter referred to as 'IMFL'). For the purpose of manufacturing of IMFL the respondent is obliged to pay excise duty under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. However, in case they wanted to export IMFL to any other state outside the West Bengal or abroad they were supposed to pay a levy by way of fee to the State Government which is known as 'Export Pass Fee'. The respondent made grievance with regard to imposition of 'Export Pass Fee' as according to them since they were paying excise duty on manufacture of IMFL and they were also paying necessary taxes and/or statutory outgoings on such manufacture the State was not entitled to put additional burden on them by way of 'Export Pass Fee' which was unconstitutional.2. Identical issue was dealt in the case of Phipson & Co. Limited v. State of West Bengal Matter No. 775 of 1970 where the learned Single Judge by ...

Biman Chatterjee and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN125

Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. The scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Cr.PC is the subject-matter of this revisional application filed by the two petitioners who have been by the order dated 24.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas summoned in Sessions Case No. 86(6) of 2004 corresponding to S.T. Case No. 1(9) of 2004 to stand trial under Sections 364/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.2. One Partha, the victim of the case, had remained untraced since the morning of 5.9.1997. The de facto complainant (P.W.1) started for searching his brother Partha and came to know that on that date police had killed one boy by firing. On the morning of 6.9.1997 P.W.1 rushed to Kaipukur in search of his brother and then came to know that on the previous day in the morning police killed one boy named Suresh Bauri and took away another boy who was seated in a tea stall with injury on his leg due to firing by the police. Then having gone to Habra Police Station, P.W....

Nozrul Islam and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN409

1. An affidavit has been filed in terms of our earlier order dated 30th April, 2008 and the same is kept with record. In the affidavit, the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer has stated in no uncertain terms that he has committed wrong and admitted his ignorance of the provision of law.2. In view of this sincere and candid statement, we do not wish to initiate any action against him, but we record that this is not a bona fide action and this action is palpably mala fide and may or may not be intentional, such an action was not warranted under the law. He has admitted his fault by himself, but the litigant has suffered a lot.3. Therefore, we direct the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to carry out the earlier order of the learned Tribunal dated 21st July, 2000 in true and proper spirit and terms thereof, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. This shall be done upon service of prior notice to the petitioners and giving opportu...

Raghunath Samanta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR1054]

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Prasenjit Mandal, JJ.1. Mr. Pan files vakalatnama in Court the same be taken on record.2. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed since affidavit-in-reply had been filed by the respondent to contest the application before I ho learned Tribunal.3. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th of January, 2007 passed by the learned Tribunal by which the petitioner's application for granting promotion has been rejected.4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order and we notice the learned Tribunal, having admitted the appeal and hearing at length, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner he neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor the delay in filing the application has been explained.5. Learned Tribunal in deciding the matter has relied on Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which is set out hereunder:21. Limitation--(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application--(a) in a...

Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Vs. Bhim Maya Chettri

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009ACJ2133,2008(2)CHN1042,[2008(119)FLR22],(2009)ILLJ476Cal

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is at the instance of an employer and is directed against the order dated 27th July, 1999 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Durgapur, in Claim Case No. 861 of 1986 thereby directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 73,668/- to the respondent. Being dissatisfied, the employer has come up with the present appeal.2. The respondent before us filed an application in terms of Section 3 of the Act on the following allegations:One Ganesh Bahadur Chettri, a watch guard employed by the appellant, received personal injury by an accident on 19th April, 1985 arising out of and in course of his employment resulting in his death. His dead body was found at about 4-30 a.m. on 20th April 1985. In spite of demand, the employer refused to pay the compensation. Hence, the proceedings for compensation.3. The claim application was opposed by the employer by...

Pravash Hazra Vs. Subrata Sen and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No. 11 dated 24.01.2006 and order No. 15 dated 04.03.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas in Misc. Case No. 310 of 1998 whereby by the first order dated 24.01.2006 the learned District Judge has granted permission to sell the debuttar properties as described in the body of the application to M/s. Power Transmission and Casting Private Limited at a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- in modification of the earlier order dated 09.09.1998 and by the second order dated 04.03.2006 the learned Judge has rejected the prayer of the applicant to rescind the order dated 24.01.2006.2. The fact of the case leading to the passing of the impugned orders is that by order dated 09.09.1998 the learned District Judge granted permission to the trustee to sell certain immovable properties to one intending purchaser namely, Sri Pravash Hazra or his nominee at a considera...