Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 22nd June, 2010 passed by the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission in RP No. 52 of 2010 setting aside the order dated 18-03- 2010 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-I in CDF Case No. 137 of 2010 at the instance of the petitioner herein. 2. Heard Mr. Banerjee, Learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Chatterjee, Learned Advocate for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. 3. Let me now consider as to how far the Learned State Commission was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. A complaint case was initiated by the opposite party herein against the petitioner before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-I. The said proceeding was registered as CDF case No. 137 of 2006. The petitioner was contesting the said complaint case by filing objection th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. In Sessions Case No. 97 of 2005 [Sessions Trial No. 1(12) of 2005] the appellant-accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 302/394 of the IPC and by judgment and orders dated 15.09.2008, 18.09.2008, 20.09.2008 and 23.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Kolkata, the appellant-accused was found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC and was sentenced to death by ordering to be hanged by neck till death. The appellant-accused has also been found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a direction that the sentence of the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC would cease to have any effect in case the sentence of death under Section 302 IPC is confirmed by the High Court. This appeal is directed against the sentence of death and imprisonment for life. Along with the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the appellant/ writ petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated 7th September, 2009 passed by the learned Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits with costs assessed at 300 G.Ms. The appellant/writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the decision of the authorities of the respondent-bank to transfer the said appellant/writ petitioner by issuing the Memo dated August 18, 2009 to Guwahati office on the ground that the said writ petitioner is entitled to exemption from transfer in terms of the policy decision of the bank. The aforesaid order of transfer issued by the respondent-bank under Memo dated August 18, 2009 is set out hereunder:No.DAPM(Kol).ST. 1814/03.34.03/2009-10 August 18, 2009Sri Prabhat Kumar Chakravarty (CC-0227) Assistant Manager Department of Administration & Personnel Management Reserve Bank of India KolkataDear SirStaff Class I Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, a limited company has challenged an order passed by the learned Judge, Second Labour Court, Kolkata, allowing an application filed by the workman, being the respondent no. 5 for impleading the writ petitioner as a party to a subsisting proceeding pending before him. The respondent no. 5 was appointed by Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (JIL) being the respondent no. 4 as a sales promotion representative with effect from 22 March 1994. Subsequently, there was an arrangement between the writ petitioner and JIL for transfer of two brands of JIL to the writ petitioner, being Viva and Maltova. By an agreement executed on 8 February 2000, which was termed as Secondary selling and merchandizing agreement an arrangement between the petitioner and JIL was entered into, under which the latter agreed to render professional services in secondary selling of products under these two brands. The case of the writ petitioner is that under the said agreement, employees ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The petitioners son is a student of WWA Cossipore English School (hereafter the school). The school is affiliated to the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations (hereafter the Council). 2. This petition dated May 3, 2010 has been presented by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the action of the school in not promoting his son to class X from class IX. According to the petitioner, his son had succeeded in obtaining marks more than that stipulated by the Council for regulating promotions of students from class IX to class X and, therefore, have acted without jurisdiction. 3. Mr. S.K. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner has taken pains to demonstrate before the Court that the petitioners son was entitled to be promoted to 2 class X in terms of the regulations framed by the Council. He, accordingly, prayed for an order on the school to promote the son of the petitioner to class X and further order on the Council to allow him appear at the School Final...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 1. This revisional application has been directed against the order No. 60 dated 13th February, 2007 passed by Sri R. Chakraborty, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court at Alipore in title suit No. 60 of 2001, whereby the learned Civil Judge concerned has rejected the petition of the defendant No. 5 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for expunging or striking out the name of the defendant No. 5 Company from the cause title of the plaint. 2. It is the case of the applicant/defendant No. 5 that the opposite party No. 2 M/s Golden Biscuits Co. Pvt. Ltd. was the defendant No.1 and opposite party No. 2 was the absolute owner of the factory premises at Panchghara. The West Bengal Financial Corporation (WBFC) had charge over said property and the said defendant company in liquidation was wound up by an order dated March 10, 1999 passed by the Honble High Court, Calcutta and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The above appeal was admitted by an order dated 16th September 2009 on the following questions of law.1. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law inasmuch as it adopted a wholly erroneous approach in interpreting the provisions of subsections (2) and (5) of section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in denying the assessees claim for exemption from tax under section 10A of the said Act in respect of the profits and gains of Rs.19,99,084/-, derived by her new industrial undertaking, set up at Falta Free Trade Zone, during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2005-06, and, in that view of the matter, in arbitrarily reversing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XIX, Kolkata, whereby such exemption was allowed? 2. Whether on a correct interpretation of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal substantially erred in law in holding that the assessee shifted/transferred her existing business from Non-SEZ Area to Falta Free Trade Z...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The Court: - In the year 2000, to be precise in the month of February of the said year one Mr. Sadhan Ranjan Banerjee as the sole executor of a Will of Ms. Bakul Banerjee, since deceased, (testatrix in short) dated 26 July 1994 applied for probate of the said Will by filing an application in this Court, P.L.A. No. 94 of 2000. After the initiation of the probate proceedings, pursuant to the order of this Court citation was issued and served upon the legal heirs of the testatrix. Two out of the three brothers of the testatrix applied for condonation of delay in lodging the caveat with certain other prayers and the said application was allowed and the applicants were given two days within which the caveat was to be lodged in the probate proceedings. Two brothers of the testatrix, thereafter, lodged their caveat in order to contest the probate proceedings. 2. The executor of the said Will, thereafter, applied for discharge of the said caveat and grant of probate in his favour. The said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Challenge is to the order dated June 3, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court at Alipore in Money Suit No.62 of 2000 thereby rejecting an application of the defendant for production of two documents for examination of the plaintiffs witness on recall.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a money suit being Money Suit No.62 of 2000 for recovery of money, damages, etc. The defendant/petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised by the plaintiff. Both parties have adduced evidence and the evidence on behalf of the defendant has been closed even on recall and the suit has been fixed for argument. At that stage, the defendant/petitioner filed an application for recall of two documents dated April 16, 2010 and May 4, 2010 stating, inter alia, that those two documents are vital for proper adjudication of the dispute. His application was rejected by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated August 24, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Diamond Harbour in Title Suit No.319 of 1999 thereby rejecting an application under Section 17(2) & 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint, against the defendant/opposite party on the ground default, reasonable requirement, damages, etc. In that suit, the defendant appeared and filed an application under Section 17(2) & 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. In disposing of that application, the learned Trial Judge has observed that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and for that reason, the application is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, he has rejected the application under Section 17(2) & 17(2A) of the said Act. Bei...
Tag this Judgment!