Kolkata Court February 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Seema Begum and anr. Vs. Marium Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. A vital and interesting question has cropped up before us in the instant tribunal application as to the competence of the Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Tribunal Act) under Article 323(B) of the Constitution of India to deal, entertain and/or set aside the orders, decrees and judgments passed by the Civil Judge having jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter under the Specified Act as defined under section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act 1997. 2. Initially when the said Tenancy Tribunal Act was promulgated it was made applicable in respect of five Acts. Those are the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953, the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955, the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fisherman Act 1975 and the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act 1979. By an amendment Act, the said West Bengal La...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. the Supreme Industries Limited
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the State of West Bengal and is directed against an order dated August 6, 2010, passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in case No. R.N. No.644 of 2009 thereby setting aside the order dated July 27, 2009, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Special Cell, the respondent no. 3, by which the said respondent rejected the application of the respondent No.1 for renewal of the eligibility certificate for the period of April, 06 March, 07 and April, 07 March, 08.2. The following facts are not in dispute:3. The respondent no. 1/company started its first production of goods in a newly set up factory at Salt Lake on 1st July, 1993 and obtained eligibility certificate under Section 10F of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 for deferment of tax for a period of seven years. The respondent no. 1/company subsequently expanded the factory by setting up a new unit in the selfsame plot of land an...
Dulichand Finance and Leasing Limited Vs. Abbasur Rahaman and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. The opposite party no.1 approached the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Barasat (hereafter the District Forum) with a complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter the Act) arraying the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner as respondents 1 and 2 respectively. On registration, the complaint was assigned DF Case No. 219 of 2003. The complaint reveals that the opposite party no.1 purchased a tempo 3 wheeler minidoor pick-up van (hereafter the vehicle) from the opposite party no.2, a distributor of vehicles, on obtaining finance from the petitioner; that an agreement was executed by and between the opposite party no.1 and the petitioner stipulating payment of a sum of Rs. 1,36,620/- by the opposite party no.1 in 22 monthly instalments commencing from October 27, 2002; that it had been settled that the petitioner would collect the monthly instalments from the opposite party no.1 through the opposite party no.2; that the opposite party no.1...
Chuanpur Talbagan Social Development Society Vs. the State of West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated February 4, 2011 is aggrieved by an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) Berhampore, Murshidabad dated February 1, 2011 (at p.24) the relevant part whereof is quoted below:- Returning herewith the application made by him along with related papers for holding Mela-cum-Fair at K.N. College Ground from 04.02.2011 to 05.03.2011 as it was not recommended by Inspector-in-Charge, Berhampore Police Station. This is for his information. 2. Both the petitioner and the private respondent (Sri Pankaj Ghosh, Secretary, Berhampore Mela Committee) applied to the Additional District Magistrate and District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad for permission to use K.N. College ground (a Government land) on a temporary basis for holding a fair. By a letter dated January 3, 2011 (at p.26) the ADM & DLLRO directed the applicants to appear before him. After hearing them he granted the permission to the petitioner. 3.By a letter dated January 13, ...
interior Installation Vs. Boc India Limited
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. The petitioner is the defendant in Money Suit No.565/2008 instituted by the plaintiff/opposite party. A petition was filed by the defendant/petitioner under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on December 15, 2008. An objection regarding maintainability of the suit in question before the Civil Court was raised therein on the plea that in view of the agreement between the parties, their inter-se disputes and differences ought to be resolved by an arbitrator appointed on mutual agreement. 2. The plaintiff/opposite party instituted the suit on the allegation that the defendant/petitioner had committed breach of contract and was, therefore, liable for damages. 23. The petition of the defendant/petitioner was taken up for consideration by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court, District 24 Parganas (South) at Alipore. By Order No. 14 dated June 2, 2010, the petition was dismissed on contest without order for costs. The defendant/petitioner calls in qu...
M/S. Padma Engineering Works and ors. Vs. the Bureau of Indian Standar ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-14-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated February 7, 2011 are questioning the Superdari Memo dated January 24, 2011 (at p.19) issued by an inspecting officer under s.26 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. Counsel submits that case of the petitioners has been specifically stated in paras.6 and 9, which are quoted below: 6. That according to the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 if there is any dispute regarding the use of BIS standard mark (ISI mark) then the concerned authority shall refer the matter top the Central Government and the decision of the Central Government will be final. 9. That the petitioners are only the dealers of the materials, which were seized by the respondent authority and the materials, were manufactured by other various companies. And your petitioners use to collect the materials from such various companies and assembled them to make a complete product and hand over the same to the persons who used to give them order. 2. I do not find any me...
Shrimati Mamata GuhA. Vs. Pranab Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.: The learned advocate for the appellant is directed to insert the name of the leaned trial judge in the preamble of the memorandum of appeal, here and now. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellant informs that his junior, Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay, learned advocate has filed fresh vakalatnama on February 15, 2011 on behalf of the appellant under filing no. A 2497. 2. The office is directed to accept the vakalatnama, if the vakalatnama is in form. This is an appeal against an order dated December 8, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Fourth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Appeal No. 46 of 2007. 3. The learned trial judge, by the order impugned, rejected an application, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the appellant seeking a direction on the respondent to open the padlock of the suit premises. The additional stamp reporter in his report expresses his doubt about the maintainability of...
Haladhar Sasmal and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. The following questions have been raised by the petitioner :-a) whether a Magistrate can issue process against an accused after filing of charge-sheet who was discharged earlier under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., before filing of the charge-sheet;b) whether the petitioner is a public servant within the meaning under Section 21 Indian Penal Code by virtue of Section 8 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983;c) if so, whether he is to be tried for an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. only by a Special Court as provided under Section 4 of the West Bengal Criminal Law (Amendment Act) Act 1949, (Act 21 of 1949).2. Mr. Somopriya Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits in respect of his first contention that once an accused has been discharged, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance against him by way of review or recalling of that order. To draw support to his contention, Mr. Chowdhury refers to the decision of the Honble Apex ...
Dishergarh Cement Works Private Limited Vs. Dpsc Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated January 29, 2011 is questioning an order of provisional assessment dated January 24,2011 (at p.77) made by the assessing officer of DPSC Limited, a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, under s.126 of the Act. 2. Relying on Lohia Mandilia & Ors. v. CESC & Ors., 2003 (2) CHN 215, Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner has argued as follows. From the documents at pp.58 and 60 it will appear that the licensee detecting a fault at the current transformer of the metering switchgear on August 31, 2010 removed the defect by replacing the faulty CT and Energy meter on October 2, 2010 until when no allegation of theft of electricity by the petitioner was made. From the inspection report (at p.67) it will appear that no allegation of theft of electricity was made, though it was stated that certain wires were found disconnected. From the seizure list (at p.70) it will once again appear that no allegation of theft of electricity was made. U...
Santosh Karmakar and anr. Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distributi ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-11-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated February 3, 2011 are aggrieved by an order dated December 22, 2010 (at p.34) passed by the Superintending Engineer & Area Manager, Malda Area Office of West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited under s.127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Relevant part of the order is quoted below: Your appeal dated 16.12.10U/S127 of Electricity Act for the disputed bill as claimed by you is related to service connection NO.I-230241 at Rathbari E.S. possessed by one Sri Raghunandan Acherjee. There is no scope for taking action against your appeal. 3. Mr. Sen appearing for the petitioners submits that the appeal has been rejected without giving the appellant any opportunity of hearing, though in view of the provisions of sub-s.(3) of s.127 the authority was under a statutory obligation to give the appellant an opportunity of hearing.4. Mr Nayak appearing for the authority passing the impugned order submits as follows. The assessing offic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »