Kolkata Court March 2010 Judgments

Gajraj Pannalal Limited (In Liquidation) Vs. the Official Liquidator a ...

Court: Kolkata

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. A dispute has been sought to be raised as to the extent of the land enjoyed by a cotton mill that was set up in the pre-Independence days and has only recently stopped functioning altogether. Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills near Palta Railway Station in North 24-Parganas was owned by a company of substantially the same name. That company, Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills Ltd, was wound up in 1955 and its assets were put up for sale. In March, 1960 Gajraj Pannalal Ltd purchased the assets and properties of Mahalaxmi Cotton Mills Ltd (in liquidation). In 1972, the Central Government took over the cotton mill under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. In 1974 the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act came into force and it was under such Act that the said cotton mill and assets in relation thereto were taken over by the Central Government and vested in the National Textile Corporation (NTC). Gajraj Pannalal Ltd went into liquidation in 1972 within a few mont...

Santi Ranjan Paul Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Dipankar Datta, J.1. The petitioner is a transport contractor who earlier had business dealings with the Food Corporation of India (hereafter FCI). However, he was banned by FCI from participating in further tender processes. The ban was lifted on March 18, 2009 subject to conditions mentioned therein. On the ground that the petitioner had not abided by the conditions, FCI did not consider his offer to execute a particular work. The petitioner challenged the action by filing a writ petition before this Court. The same was dismissed on June 29, 2009 with liberty to the petitioner to correct himself by complying with the conditions imposed by FCI within a period of fortnight from date. FCI was directed to consider the desirability of allowing the petitioner to participate in tender processes if he satisfied the conditions imposed by it.2. The order dated June 29, 2009 was carried in appeal at the instance of the petitioner. By an order dated August 17, 2009, the appeal was disposed of wi...

Prakash Chandra Goyal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2010(175)LC83(Calcutta)

I.P. Mukerji, J.1. This writ application challenges the action of the customs authorities in cancelling the sale of goods in lot No. 28/06, sold to the writ petitioner in an auction. The delivery order was issued on 23rd March 2007 but the delivery was not allowed by them.2. The ground taken by the customs authorities is that the respondent No. 3, Central Warehousing Corporation, who conducted the sale had no authority to do so.3. The goods in question are certain fabrics. They were confiscated by the customs authorities on 19th December 2005. By such act, the property in them was properly vested in the Central Government.4. There appears to be no dispute that this sale was under Section 48 of the Customs Act. The goods were stored in a warehouse owned by the respondent No. 3. As a result of the confiscation order, they had to be sold.5. The total price with duty paid by the writ petitioner on these goods was Rs. 48,10,000/-.6. As the goods have not been delivered the writ petitioner f...

Payel Sarkar Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2010Cal74

ORDERBiswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.2. The writ petitioner is a student of Class XII of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Fort William. Sometime during the last week of January, 2010, the mother of the writ petitioner was informed by the school that the writ petitioner would not be allowed to appear for the ensuing All India Senior School Certificate Examination (hereinafter referred to as AISSCE-2010), due to shortage of attendance in school. Thereafter, the writ petitioner's mother made several representations before the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Fort William; the Assistant Commissioner, Regional Office, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and the Regional Officer, Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Board'), with a request to allow the writ petitioner to sit for the AISSCE-2010, upon condoning the shortage of attendance on medical grounds, so that her academic career was not jeopardised.2A. In paragraph 18 of the writ peti...

Paras Nath Verma Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The present petitioner along with four others, who have been facing a custody trial before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Purulia, of a charge under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, has now approached this Court for transfer of the trial to any other competent Court on the ground that the Court concerned is lying vacant.2. It was contended that already the recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over and since June 25, 2005 the case was pending at the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the progress of the trial has been halted due to the absence of the Learned Judge.In this connection this Court called for a report from the Learned Registrar (Judicial Service), High Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta and the report was submitted. It appears from the said report that the Learned Judge, having suffered a severe fractur...

Sadhana Banerjee and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have moved this criminal revision seeking quashing of the charge-sheet under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code relating to G.R. Case No. 1359 of 2008 now pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, arising out of Ashok Nagar P.S. Case No. 186 dated 2.7.2008.2. In support of this application it was vehemently contended although according to the averments made in the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the husband and the wife were living separately, since August 6, 2007, but in the petition of complaint the date of the alleged incident has been mentioned as August 7, 2007 and May 14, 2008. It was further contended that all the stridhan articles have been returned.3. However, having gone through the petition of complaint, I find it is the categorical case of the complainant that she was driven out from her matrimonial hom...

Farida Bibi Sheikh Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking inherent jurisdiction, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of a First Information Report relating to offences punishable under Sections 409/406/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code against her.2. The Learned Counsel in support of this application inter alia contended as follows;(a) The allegations are motivated and have been falsely concocted out of political rivalry.(b) Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain the allegations made against her, the impugned FIR has been lodged.(c) The petitioner being the Prodhan by virtue of her office has only to supervise the overall function of the Gram Panchayat and except signing the cheque jointly with Panchayat Assistant, who is a Government Officer, she had no scope to handle the funds of the Panchayat personally.(d) No details have been furnished as to how such a huge amount of money has been defalcated.(e) The entire amount of money on account of Indira Abasan Yojona has been...

Kedarnath Tewari Vs. Nirmal Ghosh

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The present petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and also to pay compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- with default clause. The petitioner challenged the said order of conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court in a criminal revision. However lost there. Hence, this criminal revision challenging the said order of the revisional Court whereby the order of the Trial Court has been affirmed.2. Now, the petitioner have sought for interference with the order of conviction and sentence only on the ground that after revisional Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence, the dispute by and between the parties have been amicably settled out of Court and the complainant has no grievance at the present moment against the accused petitioner.In this regard a joint compromise petition has been filed by the parties reiterating such facts and their compromise.3. Heard the...

Prem Sankar Roy @ Prem Shankar Roy Vs. Tripurari Singh and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The petitioner who has been facing his prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Howrah has come up before this Court for quashing of the said case on the ground that the Court concerned is lacking of the territorial jurisdiction.2. It has been vehemently contended before this Court that from the face of the allegations made in the complaint, it is absolutely clear that not a single event has been taken place giving rise to the cause of action empowering the Court concerned to take cognizance of the offence and hold the trial. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of Harman Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. reported in (2009) 2 C Cr LR (SC) 686.On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party opposed the prayer for quashing and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bh...

Kundu Tirtha - O - Vraman Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the complainant of a case relating to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has approached this Court for a direction for expeditious conclusion of the trial relating to the said case.2. Heard Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Rash Behari Mahato, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. In spite of repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the records.3. Upon perusal of the records of this case I find that the case in question relating to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving dishonour of a cheque of Rs. 80,000/- was started on the basis of a complaint filed in Court in June, 2003 and in connection with the said case on August 22, 2005, the accused person ...