Kolkata Court June 2009 Judgments

Sri Ranjit Sarkar Vs. Smt. Malati Ghosh

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 34 dated 21st August, 2008 passed by the learned Additional civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah in Ejectment Suit No. 399 of 2005 whereby the defendant's application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 was disposed of by holding inter alia that the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent for the period from 1st November, 1986 to 1st August, 2008 i.e. for 261 months at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The defendant was, thus, directed to deposit the entire arrear rent for the said period at the said rate together with 10% interest thereon to the credit of the petitioner within one month from the date of the order. 2. The defendant is aggrieved by the said order as the dispute which the defendant raised in the said application as to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was decided against the...

Sri Rajibmoy Sengupta Vs. Sen Mahasay and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5th February, 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 250 of 1994 affirming the judgment and decree dated 11th July, 1994 passed by the learned Assistant District judge, 10th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 53 of 1992, at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.2. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises from the defendant/respondent herein on revocation of licence. Several other incidental reliefs were also claimed by the plaintiff/appellant against the said defendant/respondent of the said suit.3. The defendant/respondent contested the said suit by filing written statement denying the material allegations made out by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant/respondent claimed that the said defendant is a premises tenant under the plaintiff and the said tenancy was created by a re...

SachIn Halder Vs. Md. Shaid

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal216

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner complains of the respondent having wilfully disobeyed an order of this Court made on May 4, 2009 in proceedings brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. The petitioner had complained of a vehicle owned by the petitioner having been illegally requisitioned by the authorities for the purpose of the last general election.2. WP No. 8208 (W) of 2009 was decided on the basis of an earlier judgment reported at 2006 (4) CHN 207 : : 2006(4)CHN207 (Anirban Ghosh v. District Election Officer and Anr.) where it had been held that a private car not used for hire but meant exclusively for personal use may not be requisitioned for election purpose. The order of May 4, 2009, in its operative part, reads as follows:Since a view has been expressed by a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction which has held the field at least since the last Assembly election, the writ petition is allowed on the strength of the Anirban Ghosh dictum. The respo...

Sri Swapan Kumar Pandey Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated May 4, 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Burdwan in M.A.C case No. 72/39 of 2000. The learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in part on contest.2. By virtue of the judgment and award the learned Tribunal held that the appellant, who was a helper in vehicle(Bus) bearing registration No. WB41/5228, was the victim of an accident. The accident took place at the crossing of Memari Tarakeswar Road and Calcutta-Durgapur High Way Express near Mosagram on January 11, 1997, when there was a collision between two vehicles bearing registration Nos. WB 41/5228 and URI-795 respectively. As a result the left arm of the appellant from elbow joint up to the wrist joint got smashed and after operation and grafting the left arm took an ugly look. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,784/-(including medical expenses and others) onl...

Kalyani Mondal and ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.1. Both the above appeals arise out of the one and same accident claiming compensations under Section 140 and under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 respectively. Both the appeals are taken up for final hearing analogously.2. FMA No. 663 of 2003 is preferred assailing the judgment and award dated June 17, 2002 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bankura in MAC case No. 8/164 of 2000/2002. The above case was dismissed by the Learned Court below on contest.3. The appeal bearing FMA No. 1584 of 2003 is directed against the judgment and award dated May 7, 2003 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bankura in MAC case No. 165 of 2000. The above case was also dismissed on contest.4. One Dilip Kr. Mandal, Since deceased, of village Ardhagram, P.S. Majia, District Bankura sustained serious injury arising out of motor accident on March 28, 2000 at about 7 p.m. He was shifted to Raniganj Maroari Hospital and he succu...

Sri Ram Chandra Shaw Vs. Sri Ramji Roy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Cal)370

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sealdah on 26th May, 1997 in Title Appeal No. 101 of 1996 reversing the judgment and decree dated 29th June, 1996 passed by the learned 1st Court of Munsif at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 407 of 1988 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on revocation of his licence orally. Since the defendant did not vacate the suit premises even after revocation of his licence, the plaintiff/appellant filed the instant suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the defendant. Various others incidental reliefs were also claimed in the said suit.3. It was alleged by the plaintiff in the said suit that the plaintiff is a monthly tenant in respect of three rooms at premises No. 11/1, Raja Dinendra Street under his landlord Ashok Kr. Dutta. The defendant who was a milk...

Promising Exports Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009(168)LC253(Calcutta),2009(243)ELT3(Cal)

Soumitra Pal, J.1. These writ petitions were moved challenging the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') dismissing the appeals for non-compliance of the orders passed by it directing predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Central Excise Act' for short) or under 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Customs Act').2. It is to be noted that the writ petitions - i) W.P. No. 261 of 2008, Promising Exports Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. ii) W.P. No. 1161 of 2008, Indrajit Jash v. Union of India and Ors. iii) W.P. 2428(W) of 2008, Shree Krishna Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. iv) W.P. 4006(W) of 2008, Suresh Goyel and Sons v. Union of India and Ors. were moved challenging the orders passed in appeals by the Appellate Tribunal directing predeposit under Section 35F or under Section 129E of the Customs Act upon notice to the respondents including the Appellate Tribunal. D...

Dunlop India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner an ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ741Cal

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioners in W.P. No. 325/2007 have taken out G.A. No. 1067/2009 seeking interlocutory orders. The application has come up for consideration as a new motion. In the course of hearing counsel for the parties were invited to argue the two writ petitions, if they have no objection, for their final disposal. They have agreed to do so. Hence the two writ petitions and the interlocutory application all have been taken up for hearing together.2. W.P. No. 216/2005 was filed questioning two requisitions for certificate under Section 8C of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, both issued by the authorised officer; a notice to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not be issued, issued by the recovery officer; and an order of attachment of movable property, also issued by the recovery officer. The two requisitions both dated January 17, 2005 are Annexure P-8 at pp. 173-175, the notice to show cause dated January 27, 2005 is Annex...

Rafiq Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Dipankar Datta, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of the South Bengal State Transport Corporation (hereafter the Corporation). He was placed under suspension in terms of order dated 19th May, 2001 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Charge-sheet dated 28th June, 2001 was issued by the Divisional Manager of the Corporation alleging that while the petitioner was discharging duty on 4th May, 2001 as bus conductor on the Durgapur-Digha (Up) route, he had committed misconduct. The allegations were that he had in his cash bag Rs. 1267/- in excess against actual sale of Rs. 2802/-; that he did not close down the last number of tickets in the appropriate stages thereby leaving scope for re-sale of tickets; and that he did not note down the total number of passengers of different stages in the way-bill. A second charge-sheet followed on 6th July, 2001 issued by the same officer whereby it was alleged that in trying to explain his conduct pertaining to the disposal of a claim for refu...

Engineer Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. a and N Administration and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal284

ORDERK.J. Sengupta, J.1. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties I am of the view that in this matter the Writ Court cannot quantify the amount as claimed. However, from the record it appears that admittedly some works have been done by the petitioner and the benefit of such work has been accepted by the respondents. Completion certificate has been issued but there is a dispute whether the person concerned who has issued certificate has any competency or not. When the work has been done and the same has been accepted a party cannot turn around and say on some plea and other that no payment would be made. That amounts to unjust enrichment and contrary to the provision of Section 70 of the Contract Act which is stated hereunder:70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act - Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such another person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter ...