Court : Kolkata
1. Challenge is to the Order No.2 dated March 28, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah in Misc. Appeal No.34 of 2011 thereby affirming the order no.214 dated March 11, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Sealdah in Misc. Case No.9 of 2011 arising out of Misc. Case No.23 of 2004. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff / opposite party no.1 herein instituted the suit being Title Suit No.476 of 1969 for eviction against the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party no.2 on the ground of subletting before the learned Munsif, 1 st Court, Sealdah. That suit was decreed on contest in December 1993 and the appeal preferred by the opposite party no.2 against the said judgment being the Title Appeal No.24 of 1994 was also dismissed. 3. In the mean time, the plaintiff put the said decree into execution being Execution Case No.18 of 1994 for getting the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This application is directed against the Order no.316 dated April 25, 2003 and June 16, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 7th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.22 of 1998 and Misc. Case No.10 of 2003 respectively. 2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely Lilabati Banerjee, instituted a suit being Title Suit No.168 of 1967 for partition claiming one-fifth share in the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. The said suit was renumbered subsequently as Title Suit No.173 of 1968 and it was decreed in the preliminary form on March 13, 1968. 3. Thereafter, the heirs of the original plaintiff, that is, the petitioner and others filed an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act for pre-emption and that application was converted into the Misc. Case No.8 of 1988. That Misc. case was allowed ex parte on March 14, 1992. There...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. These three applications are taken up together as they involve the common questions of law. For convenience, I am discussing the case being C.O. No.3418 of 2004. Challenge is to the order dated July 16, 2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Presidency Division in Appeal Case No.49 of 1997-98. 2. The petitioner purchased certain immovable property of undivided one-third share of a three storied wholly tenanted building together with a piece of land having an area more or less about 6 Cottah 6 Chittak and 30 Sq.ft. at premises no.89/6, Repon Street, Calcutta now known as 89/6B, Repon Street, (Muzaffar Ahmed Street), Calcutta-16 at a consideration of Rs.1,30,000/- from one Smt. Sova Devi, Pradip Mukherjee and Mrs. Mala Chatterjee by a deed of sale dated April 8, 1994. 3. That deed of sale was registered at the office of the Registrar of Assurance, Delhi due to the convenience of the parties at the material p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against the order dated 18th May, 2001 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Calcutta in ITA No. 1080(Cal) of 1998 relating to the Assessment Year 1995-96 allowing an appeal preferred by the assessee. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. 2. The only question that fell for determination before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal below was whether the subsidy granted by the Government of West Bengal in favour of the assessee to the extent of Rs.5,34,86,887/- should be treated to be a capital receipt or not. The Assessing Officer opined that the assessee received the abovementioned amount as industrial promotion assistance from the Government of West Bengal during the year under consideration, and in its ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This is an appeal filed from order dated 29th July 2008 passed by the Controller thereby dismissing the appellant’s application for cancellation. The case of the appellant is that an application was filed for cancellation of respondent’s registered design 176343 which was registered in Class-3 on 4th May, 1998. 2. There was nothing new or original in the said design and variation, if any, was only a trade variation and functional. In fact, in 1997, similar designs had been registered. On the ground of prior publication the registered design of May, 1998 was also liable to be cancelled, as the design of the neck of the toothbrush registered in 1997 was the same as that registered in May, 1998. Similarly, for the same reason the handle of the registered design of May, 1998 could not have been registered. 3. The bristles of the registered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The petitioners in W.P.C.T. 198 of 2010 and respondent in W.P.C.T. 291 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) initiated selection process for the post of Apprentice Mechanic Inter-State (Electrical) which was a selection post. Out of twenty-two vacancies, three vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste, two for Scheduled Tribe and the rest seventeen for the unreserved category. The authorities held a written test on August 6, 2005 and published the result on November 14, 2005. 2. The authority published the final panel on February 21, 2006 where the petitioners in W.P.C.T. 291 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) were successful in getting their names empanelled. The private respondents challenged the panel by filing O.A. No.209 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. It was contended before the Tribunal by and on behalf of the private re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. Supplementary affidavit together with copy of the case number R.A.14 of 2000 of the State Administrative Tribunal has been filed. Let it be kept with the record. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is taken out by Bimalendu Ghosh and Swapan Kumar Dey, accused, in Kotulpur P.S. Case No.35 of 2001 dated 14.9.2011 under Section 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code praying for quashing of the entire proceeding mainly on the ground that the dispute between the parties has already been set at rest by the order passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal, West Bengal and that the F.I.R. does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioners and also that the F.I.R. was lodged about 17/18 years after the commission of the alleged offence. 3. The entire dispute relates to continuity of the service of Bimalendu Ghosh, the petitioner No.1 in the post of Operator-cum Mechanic. He allegedl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of dismissal dated 9th September, 2006. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed to the post of Sales Girl and thereafter was promoted to the post of Officer-in-Charge. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her and charges framed. By order dated 18th August, 2005, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed. 2. The said order was forwarded to the petitioner along with a copy of the charges framed and the petitioner was called upon to submit written-statement in her defence, a reply was given. The initial show-cause was not issued to the petitioner and right from the start, the attitude of the respondent was biased and in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. The copy of the Enquiry Report was not also served to the petitioner. Therefore, there has been a bre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This application is directed against the judgment and order dated June 3, 2005 passed by the learned West Bengal Waqf Tribunal in Appeal No.24 of 2004 thereby affirming resolution of the Board of Waqfs dated September 2, 2004 passed in respect of Item No.15 of the Board Committee in E.C. No.12078. 2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that one Janab Fakir executed a deed of waqf dated December 15, 1931 in respect of his various properties and the said deed was registered. 3. Accordingly, Janab Fakir Waqf Estate under E.C. No.12078 was formed as per terms of the deed of waqf. Tosaddak Fakir, father of the applicant, became the Mutwalli of the said Waqf Estate. On his demise, his two sons, namely, Toyab Ali Fakir and Morshed Ali Fakir (petitioner) became the Joint Mutwallis of the said Waqf Estate by an order dated May 20, 1969 passed by the Board of Waqfs. Thereafter, the opposite party nos.2 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This application is directed against the order dated August 19, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit no.1245 of 2010 thereby rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. filed by the defendants. 2. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.1245 of 2010 against the petitioners and the proforma opposite party praying for the relief that the plaintiff is a lawful tenant in respect of the premises-in-suit under the defendant no.1 and is not liable to be evicted without due process of law, that the plaintiff is entitled to hold the tenancy right over the said premises-in-suit at the exclusive of any claim, demand, right and interest of the defendant nos.2 and 3, their men and agents, permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from disturbing plaintiff’s peaceful possession over the...
Tag this Judgment!