Court : Kolkata Appellate
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.1. This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been directed against the order dated 28.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, whereby cognizance was taken regarding the commission of offence punishable under Sections 494/498A of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner in connection with case No. C/670/2006. 2. It is the case of the petitioner accused that the petitioner met the opposite party No. 2 namely Kajal Bandopadhyay (nee De) in the year 1992 when both the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were lecturers of Vidyasagar University, Medinipur, and they had a love affair between them. The opposite party No. 2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and their marriage took place on 5th March, 1993 as per the provision of Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Marriage Registrar Anta Bagchi. Out of their wedlock a male ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1) Smt. Rupa Agarwal and Smt. Deepa Tantia have taken out this application Under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing of proceeding in Tollygunge Police Station Case No. 281 of 2009 dated 13.11.2009 under Sections 498A/384/327/406/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code so far as that relates to them. 2) Tollygunge Police Station case No. 281 of 2009 dated 13.11.2009 was initiated on the basis of a written complaint filed by Smt. Megha Agarwal wife of Deepak Agarwal in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 15.11.2009 which was referred to Tollygunge Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for treating the same as FIR and to start investigation and to report. Smt. Megha Agarwal filed that written complaint against her husband Deepak Agarwal, fatherin-law Dursi Chandra Agarwal , Smt. Raj Kumari Agarwal, mother-in-law, Smt. Deepa Tanti, married sister-in-law and Smt. Rupa Agarwal, married sister-in-law. The allegation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2009(168)LC253(Calcutta),2009(243)ELT3(Cal)
Soumitra Pal, J.1. These writ petitions were moved challenging the orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') dismissing the appeals for non-compliance of the orders passed by it directing predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('Central Excise Act' for short) or under 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Customs Act').2. It is to be noted that the writ petitions - i) W.P. No. 261 of 2008, Promising Exports Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. ii) W.P. No. 1161 of 2008, Indrajit Jash v. Union of India and Ors. iii) W.P. 2428(W) of 2008, Shree Krishna Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. iv) W.P. 4006(W) of 2008, Suresh Goyel and Sons v. Union of India and Ors. were moved challenging the orders passed in appeals by the Appellate Tribunal directing predeposit under Section 35F or under Section 129E of the Customs Act upon notice to the respondents including the Appellate Tribunal. D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is at the instance of an assessee and is directed against an order dated 23rd June, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata in Income-tax Appeal bearing ITA No.1220 (Kol) of 1997 for the Assessment Year 1991-92 and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. 2. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with the present appeal. The facts giving rise to filing of the appeal may be summed up thus: a) The assessee is a public limited liability company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and the present appeal arises out of the assessment made under the Income-tax Act, for the Assessment Year 1991-92 for which the relevant previous year was the financial year ended on March 31, 1991. The assessee was amalgamated with M/s. Chand Chhap Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited with effect from January 01, 1994 pursuant to an order dated September 13, 1994 passed by this Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. This appeal is at the instance of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in a writ-application and is directed against an order dated 5th and 6th May, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship set aside the order dated January 11, 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal No.1, Kolkata, in O.A./SARFAESI 70/07 rejecting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the writ petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. ('SARFAESI Act').2. The writ-petitioner, in the writ-application, out of which the present mandamus-appeal arises, challenged the aforesaid order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.3. The facts given rise to filing of the said writ-application may be summed up thus:The property involved in the writ-application was sold by the Allahabad Bank by taking recourse to Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Both admiralty suits are actions in rem directed against the same vessel, MV Vinashin Sky. The plaintiffs are different. There are several applications which have been listed and heard. The principal issue raised in both suits is by one Vietnam Shipbuilding Industry Group though the legal status of such entity is unclear and, but for an appellate court order, such entity may not have had a right of audience in the second suit. In the opening paragraph of GA No. 3476 of 2009, which is a petition for dismissal and/or rejection of the plaint relating to the earlier suit, the Vietnamese petitioner has not elaborated on its legal status though the petitioner in claiming that one Vinashin Ocean Shipping Company Ltd is its wholly owned subsidiary, has given an impression that the petitioner is probably a company. The petitioner claims to be a State-owned enterprise of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In the translated version of its certificate of business registration...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. :1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 28th September, 2011. The appellants have challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and the rules framed thereunder before the Hon’ble Single Judge and prayed for a declaration that the said Act and all consequences following from the Act is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and/or void. A writ of certiorari is prayed for calling upon the Respondents to produce all Records including documents and/or decision of and/or Records of State Government in connection therewith.2. The grounds for assailing the said Act the writ petitioner put forwarded the grounds are that the said Act of 2011 is a colourable piece of legislation and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution of India and violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.3. It is further stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. A piquant situation has arisen with the parties claiming that there was an obvious mistake in the order dated April 12, 2007 passed on an application in proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act; and, another person suggesting that there was neither any mistake in the recording of the order nor should it otherwise be corrected since valuable rights have accrued pursuant thereto.2. One Amita Sen, since deceased, instituted CP No. 252 of 1985 under Sections 156, 237, 397, 398, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 complaining of there being a serious dispute as to the structure of the company's paid-up capital and citing oppression of the shareholders and mismanagement in the affairs of the company. The original petitioner claimed to be entitled to 3472 equity shares amounting to 15.1 per cent of the valid paid-up capital in the company. The original petitioner also claimed to have the support of shareholders making up a further 7.11 per cent of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The petitioners are the holders of a registered trade mark 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA with HRB and V logo'.2. A rectification petition under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereafter the Act) read with Section 57 thereof was filed by the respondents 3 to 7 on 9.3.2007 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereafter the Board) praying for removal of the aforesaid trade mark of the petitioners from the register of trade marks for non-use. The rectification petition was registered as ORA/14/2004/TM/KOL. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been contesting the rectification petition.3. The Board had fixed 11.11.2009 as the date of hearing of the rectification petition. The petitioners had filed an application for adjournment of hearing on the ground stated therein.4. Such application, however, was rejected and the Board proceeded to hear the parties and concluded the hearing on that very date and reserved its judgment.5. On 23.11.2009, the petitioners filed a mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated June 30, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.5 of 2007 thereby rejecting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, an application under Section 7(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and allowing the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 on contest.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party instituted an ejectment suit being Ejectment Suit No.5 of 2007 on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. The petitioner was contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. Even it participated in the matter of amendment of the plaint by filing a written objection to the application for amendment of the plaint. But the petitioner did not take any step under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1997. For that reason, the opposite party filed an application under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!