Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN12
Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order contained in letter No. 650/CC/WC-06/FD/04/(203) dated 13.05.2006 passed by the West Bengal Commission of Women, Kolkata.2. By the said letter the Employment Officer-in-Charge, District Employment Exchange, Jangipur was asked to release the salary of the present petitioner which was withheld previously. By the said letter l/3rd salary of the present petitioner was asked to be deducted from the month of November, 2005 and to send the same directly to his wife Jharna Roy.3. The fact leading to the filing of the instant revisional application may be summed up as follows:i) That the present petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk under the Directorate of Employment in the year 1996 and was transferred to Jangipur Employment Exchange on 14th March, 2005. He was working at Rabindra Bharati University on deputation. He was asked by the Deputy Chief of U.E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side WP830of 2013 Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat -Vs.Additional Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata & ORS.Before : The Honble Justice Arijit Banerjee For the petitioner : Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr.Adv.Mr.Arijit Chakraborty, Adv.For the respondents : Mr.Somnath Ganguli, Adv.Ms.Manasi Mukherjee, Adv.Heard On : 12.05.2015, 05.06.2015, 09.06.2015, 23.06.2015 21.07.2015, 23.07.2015, 16.11.2015, 02.11.2016 12.01.2017, 16.01.2017, 30.01.2017. 06.02.2017 CAV On : 08.02.2017 Judgment On : 21.09.2017 Arijit Banerjee, J.:(1) An order dated 11 June, 2013 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs (Port).Kolkata being the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as the respondent) on an adjudication proceeding ordering confiscation of a vehicle imported by the petitioner, directing the petitioner to pay differential duty amounting to Rs.25,91,844/- and penalty of equal amount and further penalty of Rs.2 lacs imposed on the petitioner, is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1940Cal254
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 and 6 and arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiff for establishment of her title to a one-third share of the properties described in the schedules to the plaint and for recovery of possession of the same jointly with the defendants. The plaintiff's case was that the properties in suit originally belonged to three brothers, namely Bhabataran, Nimai and Rakhal, in equal shares. Of these three brothers Rakhal died first leaving as his heiress, a childless widow named Kiran Bala, who was defendant 5 in the suit. After that Bhabataran died; he had no wife or son living at the time of his death and was survived by a widowed daughter who is defendant 6 in the suit and who could not inherit his property according to the rules of the Hindu law. Nimai, the surviving brother, inherited the one-third share of Bhabataran and this together with his own one-third gave him a two-thirds shares in all the scheduled properties.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2003Cal165,(2003)1CALLT168(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J. 1. In this case I am invited to decide the scope of the power of revision of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999.2. As the point involved in this case is a matter of general importance, I requested the learned members of the Bar to appear and assist me on the question of maintainability and scope of civil revision cases in view of the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999.3. Mr Sudhis Dasgupta, learned senior advocate, appearing in support of this revisional application, argued that in spite of amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by the amending Act of 1999, the High Court is not denuded of its revisional power in respect of interlocutory orders, which are not subject to appeals. Mr. Dasgupta argued that the expression 'any case which has been decided' by any Court subordinate to such High Court includes part of a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1882)ILR8Cal837
Field, J.1. This was a suit to recover land, and was brought against a sole defendant. That sole defendant died on the 5th September 1880, after the institution of the suit. On the 8h November 1880, that is, sixty-three days after his death, an application, which purported to be made under Section 368 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was made to the Subordinate Judge for the purpose of having the son and heir of the deceased defendant made a defendant in his stead. On the 22nd November 1880, the Subordinate Judge, considering this application out of time, because it was not made within the sixty days allowed by Article 171B of the second schedule of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877, rejected it, and made an order that the suit do abate. On the same day, that is, the 22nd November 1880, a further application was made to the Subordinate Judge that this order, directing the suit to abate, might be set aside, on the ground that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause from applying wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1981)21CTR(Cal)244,85CWN203,[1981]130ITR223(Cal)
Sabyasacht Mukharji, J.1. In this case, the assessment years involved are 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessee was the holder of an impartible estate known as the Burdwan Raj and was governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. There was a partition of the family properties, according to the assessee, between the assessee and his three sons, by a deed dated 10th April, 1962. The assessee claimed partition of the family properties before the ITO. The ITO was of the view that the assessee has been assessed as an individual in the past and there has been no HUF which could be partitioned within the meaning of Section 171(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the claim for partition was not enforceable. He was also of the view that the partition had not taken place in the true sense of the term as the assessee's mother and brother had no right to relinquish their title or interest in the impartible estate which was solely governed by the rule of primogeniture. He further found that there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA No.3680 of 2014 EC No.170 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE NUMAZAR DORAB MEHTA & ORS.Versus THE ASSAM COMPANY INDIA LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 8th October, 2015. Appearance: Mr.Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Ranjan Bachawat, Sr.Adv.Mr.Dhruvo Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Sourav Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Arnab Basu Mullick, Adv..for the decree holdeRs.Mr.Anindya Kumar Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sudip Deb, Adv.Mr.Sankarsan Sarkar, Adv.Mr.Kirit Zaveri, Adv..for the judgment debtor. The Court:- The misery of the judgment debtor starts after a decree passed is what manifested in this proceeding. A decree passed in a proceeding initiated under Chapter 13A of the Rules on the Original Side of this Court upheld by the Honble Division Bench and a Special Leave Petition preferred by the judgment debtor against such decree was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court, still, the decree could...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
FORM NO.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE Present: Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta And The Hon'ble Justice Sudip Ahluwalia ITAT No.189 of 2013 G.A.No.3382 of 2013 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA Versus M/S.GLASS EQUIPMENT (INDIA) LTD Heard on: 20.3.2014, 21.3.2014 & 2.4.2014 Hearing Concluded on: 2nd April, 2014 Judgment on : 16/05/2014 Advocate for the Appellant: Mr R.N.Bandopadhyay, Advocate Ms.SuklaDas Chandra, Advocate. Advocate for the Respondent: Mr.R.K.Murarka, Advocate Ms.Sutapa Roychoudhury, Advocate. GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J. : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal preferred by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue has come up in appeal. The assessee has filed a Cross Objection. The facts and circumstances of the case are as follo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(4)CHN789,[2009(121)FLR456]
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and a serious question has been raised regarding Primary Training Teachers' Institutes, both Government and Private. The complaint is basically made against 138 Institutes, which are presently engaged in training students for entitling them to teach at the primary level. Out of the said institutes, only 20 institutes are recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education. It is also pointed out that these Institutes are run on the basis of an Act called West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) which was amended extensively in 2002.2. The petitioner submitted that the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (Recognition of Primary Teachers' Training Institute) Regulation, 2002 was introduced in the year 2002. Pursuant to the application made by the respondents, Primary Teachers' Training Institutes, the West Bengal Board of Primary Educatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET GA No.1767 of 2012 With CS No.103 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SOUTH CALCUTTA DIESELS PRIVATE LIMITED Versus MANJULA DEVI DUGAR BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 18th June, 2015. Appearance: Mr.Abhrajit Mitra Sr.Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr.Soumabho Ghosh, Ms.Sonia Sharma, Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.Mr.Jishnu Saha Sr.Adv.Ms.Arpita Saha, Adv.Ms.Ruby Jiswal, Adv.The Court: The claim in the suit is arising out of price of goods sold and delivered. The defendant was a sole selling agent of Bosch India LTD.The petitioner used to purchase diesel engines sold under the logo Bosch through the defendant. The plaintiff from time to time disbuRs.diveRs.amounts on various dates out of which it is claimed that the defendant has failed to deliver the goods for the advance made for a sum of Rs.26,20,034.65. The plaintiff has relied upon various communications which, inter alia, included a communication dated 3rd March, 2012 in which ...
Tag this Judgment!