Kolkata Court September 2008 Judgments

Shri Pradip Kumar Kotal Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)4CALLT390(HC)

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Challenging the judgment and order dated 17th November, 2005 passed by the learned trial Judge in a writ application registered as W.P. 3575 (W) of (2005) 2003, this appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners whose writ application was dismissed. The writ petitioners are qualified with the Master Degree, more exactly the petitioner No. 1 passed M. Sc. In Physics from the B. N. Mondal University, Bihar and petitioner No. 2 passed M.Sc. in Mathematics from Ranchi University, Bihar by completing their Honours course, namely, B.Sc. (Physics) and B.Sc. (Chemistry) respectively from University of Burdwan and University of Calcutta respectively. Both are holder of B.Ed. degree. They passed Secondary and Higher Secondary examinations conducted by West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education respectively.2. While working in the post of Assistant Teacher in a secondary school recognized by Central Board of Secondary ...

Kailash Kumar Kanoria Vs. Shiv Shankar Pasari and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)1CALLT90(HC),[2009]147CompCas231(Cal)

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The facts and the legal issues involved in the applications in the two suits are more or less the same and the petitions are taken up and disposed of by this common order.2. GA No. 1669 of 1998 and GA No. 1670 of 1998 had been disposed of by two similarly-worded judgments on March 28, 2008. The first defendant was not represented in either case and advocates appearing on behalf of the first defendant were given leave to retire before the two petitions were taken up and dealt with on merits in the absence of the first defendant. The first defendant in either suit submits that he had no notice of either matter appearing for final hearing and seeks recalling of the orders dated March 28, 2008 and for the matters to be heard afresh on merits. Considering the grounds urged for recalling the orders dated March 28, 2008, such orders are recalled and GA No. 1669 of 1998 and GA No. 1670 of 1998 are taken up for hearing afresh.3. The contempt proceedings in either suit are ...

Hotel Hindusthan International Karmachari Union Vs. Hotel Hindusthan I ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN567,[2008(119)FLR545],(2009)ILLJ747Cal

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Hotel Hindusthan International is a five star hotel situated in the southern part of Calcutta. There were 406 employees at the relevant time. The appellant is a registered trade union being affiliated to Centre of Indian Trade Unions ('CITU') whereas the respondent No. 4 in A.P.O. No. 454 of 2006 is another registered trade union being affiliated to Indian National Trade Union Congress ('INTUC'). Both the unions claimed that they had the majority support of the workers. Disputes arose in September, 2003 when the appellant raised an industrial dispute with regard to payment of bonus. Management did not adhere to their charter of demand as according to the management they had already entered into a bipartite settlement with the other union being the respondent No. 4 and all 406 numbers of employees accepted the benefit derived out of the said bipartite settlement. The appellants resorted to demonstration. The management approached the learned Single Judge by fi...

Smt. Monobala Karmakar and Sri Haladhar Chowdhury Vs. Smt. Snehalata D ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT165(HC)

Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. The two second appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment and order since subject matter of the two suits is eviction of the two defendants by a common plaintiff from two portions of one and the same premises.2. Title Suit No. 496 of 1982 was instituted against one Haladhar Chowdhury alleged to be a tenant under the Plaintiff Smt. Snehalata Dhar in respect of a room with brick built walls and roofed by tiles with a verandah and a kitchen with common user of bathroom and privy at the premises No. 50/H/13, Chaulpatty Road, Kolkata - 10. He committed default in payment of rent. The suit was on the grounds of default, of reasonable requirement of the premises by the plaintiff and of committing annoyance and nuisance by the defendant and also of damage of the suit properties. Learned Munsif, 1st Court, Sealdah decreed the suit on 4th September, 1986. The defendant Haladhar Chowdhury preferred appeal being Title Appeal No. 875 of 1986 but the Additional Distr...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coats of India Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Cal)775,[2009]315ITR215(Cal),[2009]176TAXMAN438(Cal)

1. The only question which is tried to be pressed before us by Mr. Bhowmick in this matter is as per provision of Section 47(iv) of Income-tax Act whether the transfer of capital asset by a company to its wholly subsidiary company could be regarded as transfer and therefore capital gains tax could be levied on such transfer.2. The facts of this case on that ground briefly are as follows:The entire unit of packing coating units of the assessee has been transferred to M/s. Coates Coating India (P.) Ltd. ('CCIPL') with effect from 31-12-1997. While transferring the units the assessee received a sum of Rs. 29,89,87,000 by way of adjustment and issue of equity shares of Rs. 10 each in CCIPL credited as fully paid-up share capital. In the process of such transfer a surplus amount of Rs. 19,14,55,804 was credited to the accounts of the assessee over and above the book value of the assets actually transferred to the CCIPL as on 31-12-1997. The assessee claimed that this excess amount is not ta...

Manoranjan Sil Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4719

P.S. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal as per Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against order passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge at Port Blair in connection with Sessions Case No. 13 of 2002 (Sessions Trial No. 31 of November, 2003).2. By the said judgment, the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, he was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.3. The fact leading to filing the instant appeal may be summed up thus:One Surabala Harizan lodged one oral complaint before the police which was reduced into writing and the same was treated as FIR. In the said complaint which is genesis of the sessions trial, the de facto-complainant stated that the deceased Reeta, who was her daughter, married the present appellant without their consent and after the marriage, the said Reeta gave birth to a sen. When the alleged i...

Berger Paints India Limited Vs. Ashish Chattopadhyay and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiff alleges that an employee had defalcated substantial sums by making fictitious entries in vouchers presented for payment and seeks judgment on admission on the basis of two undated documents written out by the employee and his father wherein the embezzlement is said to have been acknowledged and a promise made for refund.2. The plaintiff says that between September, 2000 and December, 2002 the first defendant employee caused seven cheques to be issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 6 (whether in the name of Dimensions or Dimensons) without the plaintiff having received any goods or services from the payee. It was only in 'the beginning of May 2003' that the plaintiff says that the alleged defalcation was detected in course of reconciliation of accounts. It is alleged that the first defendant caused certain vouchers to be prepared and presented to the accounts department and induced the accounts personnel of the plaintiff to issue cheq...

In Re: Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Overruled

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009(1)CHN156

1. Two orders passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Barasat (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Trial Court') under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') on 30.01.2008 and 13.02.2008 in Case No. 23 of 2007 has paved the way for the petitioner to file these two applications.2. While C.R.R. No. 765 of 2008 relates to an order dated 13.02.2008, in C.R.R. No. 411 of 2008 the subject-matter for decision is the order passed on 30.01.2008.3. Initially, both these applications styled under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were moved before a learned Single Judge of this Court. In course of hearing of the same, the learned Senior Counsel for the Narcotic Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bureau') and the Counsel for the State of West Bengal raised a preliminary objection that the issue involved in these applications would, ultimately, impinge on the question of bail, which de...

Tanushree Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT131(HC)

Saliendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. Grievance of the writ petitioner as ventilated in the present application relates to alleged illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the authority in not considering her case relating to the result of the Special Compartmental Examination as per Sections 25 and 26 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979.2. Factual backdrop of the case is:The petitioner passed Secondary Examination securing 65.8% marks in 2001. In 2004, she passed the Senior School Certificate Examination securing 60% marks. Though she secured 55% marks in B.Sc. (Hons.) subject, she could not qualify in Chemistry in 2006. She applied for review in respect of the said subject. On 19th March, 2007, Special Compartmental Examination was held for 'Chemistry'. On 23rd April, 2007, the B.Sc. (Hons.) Examination was started. On 23rd July, 2007, result of the Special Compartmental Examination and B.Sc. (Hons.) was published. Since the petitioner was allowed to appear in B.Sc. (Hons.), Part-II ex...

Sri Subrata Kumar Choudhury Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT183(HC),2008(4)CHN880,(2009)IILLJ549Cal

Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the alleged illegal and arbitrary decision of the respondent authority by way of initiating 'de novo' enquiry.2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India as far back as in 1994. He was transferred to local head office at Kolkata in September, 1999. In 2004, he was shifted to Howrah Zonal Office where he was posted as Senior Assistant. The petitioner was promoted to the Junior Management Grade Scale-I w.e.f. 10.11.2006. He was served with a charge sheet dated 24th April, 2006 issued by the respondent No. 2 wherein it was alleged that one Ms. Amrita Mukherjee, Assistant BPMM and GB Zonal Office, Howrah had made allegations against him in her complaint dated 18th February, 2005. The charges against the petitioner are as follows:Charge No. (i) - It is alleged that Ms. Amrita Mukherjee as well as a number of other colleagues/friends were made to beli...