Kolkata Court August 2008 Judgments

Sri Satyendra Nath Ghosh and anr. Vs. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the judgment debtors challenging the order passed by the Trial Court on 13th June, 2008.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. Very elaborate submissions have been made by the learned Counsel for the parties. It would appear that a decree was passed against the first judgment-debtor in the sum of Rs. 1.03 crore and for a sum of about Rs. 63 lacs against the second judgment-debtor Company. The decree holder has clubbed the two to claim an amount of Rs. 1.80 crore as combined sum from the judgment debtors jointly. The matter has been dealt with by different Benches of this Court at various stages. We may notice some of the orders passed.3. An order of injunction was passed by the executing Court on 30th September, 2003 granting an ad interim order of injunction restraining the appellants in any manner from transferring, alienating, disposing of, encumbering and/or dealing with any of the assets and prope...

State of West Bengal Vs. Smt. Bela Banerjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT321(HC)

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and is preferred against an award dated 5th May, 2001 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Purulia, in L.A. Reference Case No. 43 of 1987 thereby allowing a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by enhancing the compensation for acquisition of the land of the referring claimant from the one arrived at by agreement of parties in terms of Section 11(2) of the said Act. While arriving at such conclusion, the learned Tribunal below held that the agreement between the claimant and the Governor of West Bengal as to the amount of compensation of the acquired land could not have any binding effect and the claimant could not be estopped from demanding further compensation according to the market value. It may not be out of place to mention here that according to the claimant, the agreement between the parties was vitiated due to coercion, duress, etc.2. Being dissatisfied, the State of West Benga...

Ashit Kumar Palit Vs. West Bengal Steel Electricity Distribution Compa ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal1

ORDERDipankar Datta, J.1. Whether a licensee would be justified in disconnecting supply of electricity to a premises based on a request of the person whose name is recorded as a consumer thereof in its books and records without putting the person in occupation of the said premises and is actually consuming electricity on payment of charges therefor, is the question which falls for a decision on this writ petition.2. The predecessor-in-interest of the added respondents, Sri Asit Ranjan Bose was the lessee of a plot of land bearing No. DB 65, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 064, the lease having been granted by the State of West Bengal sometime in December, 1973. He had entered into a development agreement dated 15th December, 1985 with the petitioner whereby he was entrusted to develop the plot of land by constructing a multi-storied building thereon. In terms thereof, on completion of construction Sri Bose was entitled to a flat measuring 1700 sq. ft. on any one floor while the petitioner had t...

Prabal Kanto Dutta Vs. State and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN923

Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.2. The application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioners is taken up for hearing in presence of the learned Advocates for both sides,3. In this application the petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings being Complaint Case No. 113C of 2006 under Sections 14, 14A, 14(1A) and 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.4. This case was instituted by the complainant O.P. No. 2 against the petitioners for violation of the provisions contained in Sections 14, 14A, 14(1A) and 14(2) of the Act referred to above.5. It appears from the impugned order dated 10.4.2006 that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence on the basis of a complaint filed by Rajib Bhattacharjee under Sections 14, 14A, 14(1A) and 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.6. It i...

Three-n-products Private Limited Vs. Emami Limited

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN608,LC2008(3)319,2009(41)PTC689(Cal)

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The parties jostle for more leg-space on the Ayurveda bandwagon as it chugs its way to the Occident with its load of mystique and oriental herbs and spices. The plaintiff asserts its exclusive right over the word mark 'Ayur' on the strength of a black and white label registration showing the word 'Ayur' in an unremarkable font with an elliptical band around it. Such label is registered in many classes. The word mark 'Ayu' is registered in favour of the plaintiff in class 5 covering medicinal and like products. On the strength of the word 'Ayur' being the most prominent part of the plaintiff's label registrations and its proprietary right to the word 'Ayu', the plaintiff seeks to stop the defendant's use of any trademark carrying any part of either word over which the plaintiff claims exclusivity.2. Both parties are substantial. The plaintiff's impressive sales figures and advertisement expenses are matched by the defendant's substantial reputation and noticeable p...

Chanchal Kumar Patra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)3CALLT509(HC)

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioner assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge whereby and whereunder the said learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits.2. From the records we find that there was a vacancy in the post of Clerk at the Jujersa Prannath Manna Institution, Jujersa, Howrah and for the purpose of filling up the said vacant post, District Employment Exchange, Howrah sponsored the names of several candidates. The appellant herein filed the writ petition alleging that the Employment Exchange concerned sponsored the names of several candidates who had registered their names with the Employment Exchange even after registration of the name of the said appellant/writ petitioner.3. Initially, an ex-parte interim order was passed by a learned single Judge of this Court to the following effect:Let this matter appear as Listed Motion after three weeks. Affidavit-in-opposi...

Subrata Patra Vs. District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT139(HC),2008(4)CHN648

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The principal issue raised in this appeal relates to filling up the post of Headmaster in the Ghatal Vidyasagar High School.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal are mentioned hereinafter:On 1st March, 1995 an advertisement was published in the newspaper for filling up the post of Headmaster in the aforesaid Ghatal Vidyasagar High School. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, interview was held on July 29, 1995. However, in view of the objection raised by the respondent No. 5, District Inspector of Schools concerned cancelled the panel prepared by the school authority. Thereafter, second advertisement was published in the newspaper on January 12, 1996. The panel prepared pursuant to the said advertisement was again cancelled in view of the objection raised by the said respondent No. 5. On September 8, 1996 again another advertisement was published for filling up the said post of Headmaster in the said school but this ti...

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.:-1. The writ petitioners in the present application are the widow and the son of one Banshi Badan Mukhopadhyay (BBM in short) a school teacher, who died on 22nd October 1968 while in service in Bhalkuti Bhudeb Chandra Buniadi Vidyalay, a Junior basic school. He had served the school for fifteen years and nine months before he passed away. In the writ petition, prayer has been made for grant of pension to the widow (i.e. the petitioner no. 1) as well as appointment of the son of the deceased teacher, (being the petitioner no. 2) as a teacher from the exempted category, which is also known as "death-in-harness" category. The claim of the latter is for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground, but this claim was not pressed at the time of hearing by Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners. He confined his submissions for a direction upon the concerned respondents for granting family pension to the petitioner no. 1....

Pramod Chandra Ghose and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Aniruddha Bose, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Secretaries of the West Bengal M.R. Dealers Association and the Secretary of the Malda unit of the same association. The association has amongst its members dealers having license to distribute public distribution commodities under the provisions of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order, 2003 (referred to hereinafter the 2003 Control Order). In the writ petition what has been primarily challenged is an order issued by the Food Commissioner and Principal Secretary of the Government of West Bengal on 19th November 2007 in which reallocation of ration card holders tagged to individual kerosene dealers appointed under the 2003 Control Order as also the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (1968 Order) has been envisaged. A copy of this order has been made annexure 'P7' to the writ petition. It is also the prayer of the writ petitioners that the persons who are not fair price shop owners hav...

Vinod Mimani Vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. In this Contempt Petition, the petitioner has alleged that the contemnors are guilty of contempt as they have willfully violated the solemn order dated 22nd November, 2006 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2325 of 2005 with full knowledge of the text of the said order. Different allegations have been made against different contemnors regarding their acts of contempt. On scrutiny of the contempt petition, this Court finds that the alleged acts of contempt can be classified in three different categories.2. So far as the alleged contemnor Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the petitioner has alleged that they are guilty of contempt as they have neither considered nor disposed of the petitioner's representation within the time as specified in the aforesaid order of this Hon'ble Court nor the said contemnors had taken any step against the other contemnors who continued to exhibit cinema films illegally in violation of the aforesaid order of this Hon'ble Court.3. So far ...