Kolkata Court March 2010 Judgments

Doli Dolui Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ petitioner and is directed against an order dated 17th August, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writ application on the ground of want of locus standi of the writ-petitioner, as according to His Lordship, the petitioner being a daughter-in-law of the deceased employee, could not lawfully claim herself to be a 'dependant' so as to get an order of appointment on compassionate ground.2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present appeal.3. There is no dispute that the father-in-law of the appellant was an employee of the respondent and died-in-harness on 28th October, 2004 leaving not only his widow but also his three married daughters and a son, the husband of the appellant, who was alive at that point of time.4. It appears from record, that the husband of the writ-petitioner, on January 6, 2005, filed an application for conside...

Subrata Sen and anr. Vs. Nischintapur Tea Company Limited and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. A piquant situation has arisen with the parties claiming that there was an obvious mistake in the order dated April 12, 2007 passed on an application in proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act; and, another person suggesting that there was neither any mistake in the recording of the order nor should it otherwise be corrected since valuable rights have accrued pursuant thereto.2. One Amita Sen, since deceased, instituted CP No. 252 of 1985 under Sections 156, 237, 397, 398, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 complaining of there being a serious dispute as to the structure of the company's paid-up capital and citing oppression of the shareholders and mismanagement in the affairs of the company. The original petitioner claimed to be entitled to 3472 equity shares amounting to 15.1 per cent of the valid paid-up capital in the company. The original petitioner also claimed to have the support of shareholders making up a further 7.11 per cent of t...

MehjabIn @ Guddi and ors. Vs. State and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The present petitioners' who have been arraigned as accuseds under Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a case instituted on a complaint, have moved this Court for quashing of the same.2. Heard the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. Perused the materials on record. However, none appears on behalf of the complainant and it appears from the affidavit of service filed in Court that although the copy was sent to him but the same has returned unserved.3. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged the following points in support of the prayer for quashing;(a) The petitioners are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case.(b) The petitioner No. 1, after getting her previous marriage dissolved, married the complainant.(c) The factum of her previous marriage was known to the complainant as he was a co-accused in th...

Atherton Engineering Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2010(175)LC79(Calcutta)

I.P. Mukerji, J.1. This writ challenges a final order dated 2nd March 2006, passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, EZB. This final order was passed by a majority of 2:1.2. This writ application was moved before the Court on 9th June, 2006. Directions for filing affidavits were made. No affidavit in opposition is available in the record, though I find an affidavit-in-reply has been filed. This goes to point that a copy of the intended affidavit-in-opposition was served by the respondents upon the petitioner but the affidavit-in-opposition was never filed in Court. The matter appeared in my list for hearing on 25th February, 2010. At the second call the matter was heard in part and was adjourned by me to enable the respondents to appear. I directed the Counsel for the petitioner to serve a notice upon the respondents. This notice was duly served, according to the records. On the adjourned date, even at the second call none appeared for the respondents. In those cir...

Bijoy Kumar Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner moved this application seeking quashing of the First Information Report relating to Bidhannagar East P.S. Case No. 117 dated 22.7.2009 relating to the offences punishable under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the Case Diary containing the evidentiary materials collected during the preliminary investigation.3. Now, having regards to the evidentiary materials collected during preliminary investigation, I find it is the case of the complainant that the accused/petitioner is one of their employees. It is the further allegation that during his course of employment, a sum of Rs. 3,43,000/- was entrusted to him for the purpose of utilization of the same for various works of the company. The accused withdrew the said amount of money from the bank which was given to him by an account payee cheque. I further find that th...

Dipak Majumdar and anr. Vs. Smt. Rani Bala Dutta and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The opposite party No. 1 herein moved an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women's from Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners seeking the following reliefs;(a) Right to residence.(b) Monetary relief and(c) A sum of Rs. 2000/- as a share of profit from the business of the petitioners.2. However, such application of the opposite party was partly succeeded. The Learned Trial Court only allowed her prayer as regards to the right of residence. Against such order she filed an appeal under Section 29 of Protection of Women's from Domestic Violence Act before the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Howrah. Since there was a delay of 89 days, she filed such appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. It appears the Learned Judge without giving any notice to the present petitioners allowed the application for condonation of delay and only on the ground that the Learned A.P.P. did not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. Hence thi...

Bindeswar Shaw Vs. Coal India Limited and ors.

Court: Kolkata

ORDERDate ________ Signature _______________Date ____________________.3. Immediately prior to issuance of the charge-sheet, the Manager of the Colliery on January 22, 1995 lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Neturia Police Station, Purulia alleging as follows:ToThe Officer-in-ChargeNeturia Police StationNeturia, Purulia.Sub. F.I.R.Dear Sir,On 21.1.95 at about 7.30 a.m. a Truck No. BHG 4243 under the contractor employed by E.C.L. M. Dubey was lifted various parts of ... illegible ... from Ranipur Colliery Perbalia Colliery was parked in front of the cash office the premises of perbalia Colliery for the purpose of deposition of the materials in thereof Perbalia colliery on 22.1.95 But Sri M. Dubey contractor has reported in the morning hours of 22.1.95 that the same truck along with the said materials is missing.This is for your kind information and necessary actions please.Yours faithfully,Sd/- A.K. SenManager Parbelia Colliery.4. This was followed by another communication, b...

Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.

Court: Kolkata

I.P. Mukerji, J.1. Everybody knows Airtel. It is the writ petitioner here. It challenges several notices issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. These notices were issued under Section 202, 203 and 204(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. One was issued to Airtel, the others, to, Nalanda Watch Emporium, Jindal Communication, M/s. Rasraj and New Rasraj and M/s. Foreign Publishers Agency. The notice to Airtel was issued on 10th February 2007, the others, on various dates in December, 2006. They claim taxes on glow signs under those sections.2. Airtel asserts that the other noticees are doing business for it and on its behalf being its 'dealers, distributors, retailers.' In other words, it tries to say that they are its agents. Section 204 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 has given rise to all the controversy in this case. The substance of this section is that if glow signs are put up on a particular building or premise as advertisement or promotion of the...

Sudarshan Agarwal Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the wife/opposite party and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his minor son as their monthly maintenance. It was further directed that the order of maintenance will be effective from the date of the application. The said order of maintenance is under challenged in this criminal revision on the limited points that without assigning any reason no order of payment of maintenance can be made from the date of application.2. Mr. Debasish Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of this application heavily relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shail Kumari Devi and Anr. v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak reported in (2008) 2 C Cr LR (SC) 817.On the other hand, Mr. Asish Sanyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted, ...

Sri Utpal Ray Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The appellant herein was appointed as physical Instructor in the University of Kalyani and filed the writ petition claiming higher salary and teaching status along with three other physical Instructors who have already retired from service.2. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by allowing the prayer for higher pay scale at par with the physical Instructor/Instructress of colleges affiliated to the Kalyani University and rejected the other prayer with regard to declaration of status of the writ petitioner as teacher of the University.3. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, present appeal has been preferred.4. The direction of the learned Single Judge with regard to fixation of higher scale of pay for the appellant/writ petitioner at par with the physical Instructor/Instructress of the colleges affiliated to the Kalyani University has been accepted and complied with by the respondent-Unive...