Kolkata Court March 2012 Judgments

Shri Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty Vs. the Chief General Manager

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 17th February, 2012 in W.P. 067 of 2012 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by holding that the order passed by the learned Labour Court was perfectly justified and there was no scope for entertaining the said writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge, the instant mandamus appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner before this Court. Let us now consider the facts of the case in which the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Judge. A reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi on 29th June, 2009 vide notification No.L-40012/37/2009(IR)(DU) to the Labour Court in the matter of an industrial dispute between the writ petitioner, workman and M/s. Asman Ex-servicemen Se...

Shahjad Ahmed Vs. the State Bank of India, Employees Cooperative Housi ...

Court: Kolkata

I.P. MUKERJI, J. This is an application by a Shahjad Ahmed. He is the son of late Wajid Ali, who was a Mohammedan belonging to the Shia school. He seeks revocation of the grant of probate made by this court, on 21st February, 2007 in an application for such grant being PLA No. 2 of 2007. The disputed will is dated 10th February, 1992. The bequest which has occasioned this application is this. The alleged testator Wajid Ali bequeathed to State Bank of India Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the entire property described in the schedule to the will. The schedule had two parts, namely, part (i) and (ii) comprising of 63/1 and 63/2 Christopher Road, Calcutta – 46 (now Kolkata). Kanailal Chatterjee stated to be a friend and business partner of the testator of 2B Dinobandhu Lane, Kolkata – 6 was appointed as the sole executor. The alleged testator died on 1st March, 1992.The application for probate was made on 3rd January, 2007, nearly fifteen years thereafter. Prob...

Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. Vs. Second Industrial Tri ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2012(3)LLN199(DB)

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting and important question in relation to the definition of “appropriate Government” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The principal question which arises in this appeal for consideration is whether Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (in short GRSE) is an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government within the meaning of 2 (a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as follows :- “2(a). “appropriate Government” means- (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning [a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (R...

The State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Star Iron Works Ltd. and Other ...

Court: Kolkata

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. The State of West Bengal and some officers of the State Government have filed the instant writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 16th March, 2011 passed by the learned West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, inter alia declaring that the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 are not applicable in the instant case and those of Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act are applicable. By the said judgment and order, learned Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to dispose of the application filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for conversion of the lands in question within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. 2. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein filed an application being O.A. No. 1919 of 2010 before the learned Tribunal praying for issuance of the following directions :- (a) To forthwith process the application of the petitioners for conver...

Sriniketan Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Durgapur Sriniketan and Others

Court: Kolkata

I.P. MUKERJI, J. A suit has been filed complaining of infringement of trade mark or name. This interlocutory application has been made in aid of the above suit. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the english trade mark or name Sriniketan SHOPPERS’ PLEASURE and also the bengali trade mark or name Sriniketan Kenakatar Anandaniketan. They allege that the defendant by using the trade mark or name Sriniketan Kenakatar Ananda Mela in english and Durgapur Sriniketan Kenakatar Ananda Mela in bengali are infringing their mark or name. Since 1962 one Nityananda Aich carried on business as ‘Sriniketan Proprietors’.He had no partners and operated by himself from Sodepur, West Bengal. The plaintiff says that Nityananda Aich carried on business as ‘retail and general merchant’. In 1991, he promoted a private limited company. He named it Sriniketan Fashions Private Limited. On 14th October, 2004 M/s. Saha and Roy Advocates were engaged by Nityananda Aich to write to...

Ruby General Hospital Limited and Others Vs. Sajal Dutta and Others

Court: Kolkata

I.P. MUKERJI, J. THE BACKGROUND FACTS: Dr. Kamal Kumar Dutta and Mr. Sajal Dutta are two brothers. Kamal is a medical practitioner and permanently resident in the U.S.A. Dr. Binod Prasad Sinha is another doctor permanently resident in the U.S.A. and known to Kamal.These three at one point of time which now seems quite distant, got together and promoted a hospital in Kolkata by incorporating a public company. Its name is Ruby General Hospital Limited. The hospital was named Ruby General Hospital in remembrance of the deceased wife of Kamal. It got started in 1995. The then Chief Minister of West Bengal inaugurated it. This amity did not last long. The brothers fell apart. Proceedings were undertaken before the Company Law Board by Kamal and Binod, in 1997. They had filed an application under Section 397-399 of the Companies Act, 1956 complaining of oppression and mismanagement by Sajal. The order of the Company Law Board dated 29th October, 1999 was to a great extent favourable for Kama...

The Managing Committee of Mitra Institution (Main) Vs. Dr. Anisur Raha ...

Court: Kolkata

ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. FACTS The Mitra Institution (Main) is a well-known school in the Central Calcutta. The respondent was its Headmaster at the relevant period. The school charged him for embezzlement of fund that resulted in a criminal case being initiated against him. The criminal case was pending and he was facing the charges, inter alia, under Section of the Indian Penal Code. On May 3, 2010 the respondent filed a criminal case on the ground of alleged irregularity in school administration by the secretary and Assistant Headmaster in connivance with some of the teachers. On May 6, 2010 the secretary of the school put the respondent under suspension as a consequence of a meeting of the Managing Committee held on April 29, 2010. In or about July, 2010 the respondent challenged the order of suspension by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.10370 of 2010. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated July 14, 2010 disposed of the writ petition by granting him leave to fil...

The Managing Committee of Mitra Institution (Main) Vs. Dr. Anisur Raha ...

Court: Kolkata

1 Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Mr.Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Ms.Justice Shukla Kabir (Sinha) A.P.O.No.17 of 2012 W.P.No.1261 of 2010 The Managing Committee of Mitra Institution (Main) -VersusDr. Anisur Rahaman & ORS.For the Appellant : Mr.Ekramul Bari (Advocate) Mr.Sudip Ghosh (Advocate) Mr.Syed Mausin Ali (Advocate) Mr.Tanhid Khan (Advocate) For the Respondent : Mr.Subir Sanyal (Advocate) Mr.Sakti Pada Jana (Advocate) Heard on : March 14, 2012 Judgment on : March 28, 2012. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.FACTS The Mitra Institution (Main) is a well-known school in the Central Calcutta. The respondent was its Headmaster at the relevant period. The school charged him for embezzlement of fund that resulted in a criminal case being initiated against him. The criminal case was pending and he was facing the charges, inter alia, under Section of the Indian Penal Code. On May 3, 2010 the respondent filed a...

Commissioner of Incometax, Kolkataxii Vs. M/S. Tara Tuber Co.

Court: Kolkata

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Joymalya Bagchi 28.03.2012 ITA 24.of 2009 Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XII versus M/S.Tara Tuber Co.The Court :- This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested substantial questions of law relating to assessment Year 2000-01 I Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT is justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,63,531/made on account of claim of bad debt by observing that for the assessment year 2000-01 the assessee is not required to prove the debt is bad-debt pursuant to the amendment of section 36(vii) of the Income Tax Act, w.e.f.1.4.1989 and the assessee since had written off the amount from its books, such disallowance can not be made ?. II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT is correct in allowing the appeal filed b...

Eil Limited Vs. Cit, Kolkataiii

Court: Kolkata

ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax].ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No.346 of 2006 EIL LIMITED Versus CIT, KOLKATA-III BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA A n d The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI Date :28. h March, 2012. This appeal has been admitted by an order of this Court dated 25th September, 2006 on the following substantial questions of law: i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the supply of food and beverages to the international airlines in sealed containers constitutes export of goods out of India for the purposes of section 80HHC of the Act ?. ii].Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sale proceeds received for supply of such food and beverages was in convertible foreign exchange within the meaning of section 80HHC of the Act ?. iii].Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to the deduction claimed under section 80HHC of the Act ?.. iv].Whether...