Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-22-2004
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN297
D.K. Seth, J. The preliminary objection : Maintainability of the appeal:1. Mr. Santanu Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the respondent, had taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal. According to him, the decree was passed on 20th December, 2001. Against the said decree, a review application was preferred on 3rd/4th January, 2002. This review was partly allowed by an order dated 15th July, 2002. Therefore, when the appeal was preferred on 11th September, 2002 against the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2001, there was no judgment and decree, which stood modified by reason of the order dated 15th July, 2002, being the decree against which the appeal could have been preferred. The subsequent dismissal of the review application or rejection thereof on account of not being pressed by the applicant would not alter the situation and would still affect the maintainability of the appeal. In support of his contention. Mr. Mukherjee had relied upon a decision i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-15-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)CHN357
Narayan Chandra Sil, J.1. Both the suits have been taken up together for hearing in terms of the order dated 15th July, 2002 passed by Mr. Justice Sengupta in C.S. No. 32 of 2002. Accordingly common issues in both the suits which are, in fact, the cross-suits, were framed on 27.4.2004 and issue No. 1 reads as 'Is C.S. No. 32 of 2002 maintainable ?' In the present discussion heroinbelow the said issue No. 1 on maintainability of C.S. No. 32 of 2002 is taken up for disposal.2. In C.S. No. 32 of 2002 M/s. Angel's Consultants Private Limited and Ajay Singh Lodha arc the plaintiffs whereas Anand Mehta & Co. and Mr. Anand Mohta are the defendants. The position is almost reverse in E.O.S. No. 6 of 2002. There Anand Chandra Mehta is the plaintiff and M/s. Angel's Consultants Private Limited is the defendant. In fact E.O.S. No. 6 of'2002 was initially filed before the City Civil Court, Calcutta and it was pending before the learned Judge, VIIth Bench, City Civil Court and there it was registere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-01-2004
Reported in : (2005)1CALLT221(HC)
Provendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.12.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, 1st Special Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. 2/96 thereby sentencing the accused appellants Ramendra Prasad Mukherjee (appellant of CRA No. 59/92) to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The said appellant was also sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 420 IPC. The accused appellant Achintya Ranjan Das (appellant of CRA No. 46/92) was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- i.d. to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for offence under Sections 409, 420, 109 of IPC He was furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-28-2004
Reported in : 2005(3)CHN11
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 19.5.04 passed by the learned Judge of the Writ Court refusing to grant any order staying the operation of an order passed by the appellate authority under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. The learned Judge instead of granting any stay directed the matter to be heard upon affidavits.2. Before this Court, all the contesting parties submitted and prayed for final hearing of the entire matter including the writ petition. Affidavits were filed by the parties. As much, this Court, with the consent of parties, heard the matter finally and by this judgement, both the appeal and writ petition are disposed of.3. The dispute is over the running of the retail business of Indian made foreign liquor by the parties and the various orders passed by the Excise authorities from time to time in the matter.4. Initially, one Dhirendra Kumar Vyas, the husband of Bhanumati Vyas, the respondent No. 6, carried on the said business. The ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-27-2004
Reported in : 2005(4)CHN387
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order being No. 103 dated 29.01.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Diamond Harbour in T.S. No. 124/1994.2. The circumstances leading to the above revision are that the disputed property belongs to O.P. Nos. 5 to 7. There was an agreement dated 15.06.1992 between O.P. No. 4 and the said O.Ps. 5 to 7 for sale of the property. As the said O.Ps. 5 to 7 refused to execute the deed after tender of Rs. 1,75,000/- on 25th Aswin, 1399 B.S. by O. P. No. 4, the latter instituted T.S. No. 124/1994 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Diamond Harbour for specific performance of contract. The present petitioner who was added as a plaintiff in the said suit filed a 'Sikritipatra' dated 07.10.1994 executed between him and plaintiff/O.P. No. 4 which was marked 'exhibit' after objection. O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 were subsequently added as defendants. O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-23-2004
Reported in : (2005)2CALLT169(HC),2005(1)CHN27
ORDERSubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. The Court: An application for grant of probate of the alleged last Will and testament of Satidas Mukherjee, since deceased, was filed by the executor named and appointed in the said Will.2. Since a caveat was lodged, the proceeding became contentious.3. Unfortunately, before the Will could be proved, the executor died on September 15, 2002.4. The present application has been filed by one of the legatees under the Will for leave to proceed with the said application upon conversion of this proceeding for grant of probate into a proceeding for grant of letters of administration.5. Mr. Debasish Kundu, learned Advocate, appearing in support of the application, cites the cases of Shambhu Prasad Agarwal v. Bhola Ram Agarwal, reported in 2000(9) SCC 714 and Santi Swarup Sarkar v. Pradip Kumar Sarkar and Ors., reported in : AIR1997Cal197 .6. Mr. Saha, learned Advocate, appearing for the caveator, opposes this application.7. In the case of Haripada Saha and Anr....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-22-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)CHN548
P.N. Sinha, J.1. As the points involved in these two revisional applications are identical, I intend to dispose of the revisional applications by a common judgment and order. Both these revisional applications arose out of Uttarpara P. S. Case No. 181 dated 27.10.02 and chargesheet No. 97 dated 3.7.03 submitted in the said case and the order dated 9.7.03 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Serampore taking cognizance under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short Act) against the petitioners challenging which the two accused persons separately preferred these two revisional applications for quashing the chargesheet and criminal proceeding.2. In C. R. R. No. 2465 of 2003 Dr. Bimal Kumar Kundu is the petitioner who is an accused in the aforesaid case against whom the chargesheet has been submitted under Section 279 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Act. In C, R. R. No. 2803 of 2003...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-13-2004
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(Cal)261,2005(191)ELT128(Cal),[2005]278ITR274(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. All these matters were heard together as the points involved therein are identically the same. Therefore, the decision to be rendered will cover all these four matters.2. The facts are more or less identical. On different dates the learned Settlement Commission of the Income-tax Department accepted the proposal of the assessees for settlement of the cases and dues of the respective petitioners. In the case of Smriti Properties Private Ltd., the assessment years related to 1989-90 to 1994-95 and the orders were passed by the Settlement Commission by the Bench of three learned members on March 16, 1999. By the said order, interest which would ordinarily have been chargeable under the various provisions of the said Act was either partially or fully waived.3. On March 10, 2003, the income-tax authorities filed a miscellaneous petition before the Commission whereby it was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the said orders need rectification in view of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-13-2004
Reported in : 2008(4)CHN488
Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. The insant appeal is directed against judgement dated 11.6.97 passed in Mat. Suit No. 20/95 by the Judge, Family Court Calcutta, whereby the matrimonial suit was decreed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Being aggrieved by such judgement, the wife has filed the present appeal.2. The husband Manabendra Talapatra filed the petition under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act for a decree of divorce and that suit was registered as Mat. Suit No. 101/1993 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The said suit was later on transferred to the Family Court and was re-numbered as indicated above.3. In his petition, the husband alleged that both the petitioner and the respondent were employees of L.I.C. of India and they developed intimacy, fell in love, although the respondent was physically handicapped lady being polio stricken from her childhood, decided to marry, and when their decision was accepted by their respective parents and fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-27-2004
Reported in : (2005)1CALLT95(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. Writ Petitioners herein are Calcutta Mint Employees' Union and General Secretary of the said Union.2. The main prayers of the writ petitioners are quoted here in below:a) 'A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to act in accordance of the evidence as evidenced in the meetings dated 15th April 1998 and 5th May 1998 by and between the parties herein.'b) 'A writ of or in the nature of Prohibition do issue restraining the respondents from in any way or manner acting in violation of the said agreement and or in furtherance and the illegal, arbitrary proposal as recorded in the meeting held on 2nd February, 2004 which has been objected to by year petitioners'.c) 'A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari do issue commanding the respondents to transmit to this Hon'ble Court all records pertaining to the instant case so that conscionable justice may be done upon perusal of the same'.3. This writ petition was moved on 25.02.04 exparte, i...
Tag this Judgment!