Kolkata Court April 1987 Judgments
Jagjit Singh Khanna Vs. Dr. Rakhal Das Mullick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal95,92CWN190
Bhattacharjee, J.1. The plaintiff, who is respondent 1 before us, filed an application under the provisions of Order 39, Civil P.C., praying for a temporary mandatory injunction against defendant 1, who is respondent 2 before us and a temporary prohibitory injunction against defendant 2, who is the appellant before us. The trial court issued notices to the defendants to show cause as to why such injunctions shall not be granted, but refused the prayer for ad interim injunction.2. Within a week thereafter defendant 1 appeared and prayed for time to file his show cause. The plaintiff has then filed another application under the provisions of Section 94 of the Code renewing his prayer for ad interim injunction against defendant 1 and on consent of both the parties, the trial Court has allowed the application under Section 94 of the Code and has granted ad interim injunction 'till the final disposal of the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.' and has stated in the impugned or...
Tag this Judgment!Tapankumar Chatterjee Vs. Smt. Kamala Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Cal74
Ajit Kumar Nayak, J.1. This appeal is directed at the instance of petitioner-husband against the judgment and decree dt. 12-11-1979 passed by Shree S. K. Basu, learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No. 28/76 refusing the appellant petitioner's prayer for judicial separation and in the alternative for dissolution of his marriage on the ground of desertion. Having considered the respective contention of the parties, appearing in their pleadings, as supported by the oral and documentary evidence led by the m and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both sides, we are of opinion that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his case of desertion and we hereby affirm the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. As already stated, the petitioner (appellant) brought this soil for judicial separation, in the alternative for a decree for divorce, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Gita Chatterjee Vs. Probhat Kumar Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal83,92CWN302
Bhattacharjee, J.1. The petitioner-wife, who is the respondent in this appeal, has filed this application under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of this appeal against the husband who is the appellant in this appeal. In the Court below, the husband did not contest the wife's application for pendente lite maintenance and on consent of the parties, the Court passed an order directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 350/- per month as maintenance during the trial. Before us, however, the present application by the wife-respondent for pendente lite maintenance during the period of this appeal and for expenses for this appeal has been very seriously opposed by the husband-appellant on the ground that he has now come to learn that the wife owns two pieces of valuable lands in Calcutta and as such she cannot be regarded to be one who 'has no independent income sufficient for her support' within the meaning of Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, and is, th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sheela Adhikari Vs. Rabindra Nath Adhikari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal273,92CWN248
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. Can a court return a plaint under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure solely on the ground that some of the causes of action united in the plaint are not triable by it for want of territorial jurisdiction, even though the other causes of action joined therein are within such jurisdiction? An affirmative answer to this question will result in dismissal of the appeal while a negative answer will require the appeal to be allowed. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, we answer the question in the negative.2. Under Order 2, Rule 3(1) of the Code, a plaintiff can unite any number of causes of action against the same defendant. But since the Rules in the First Schedule of the Code cannot override or outweigh the Sections in the body of the Code. Rule 3(1) of Order 2 as to joinder of causes of action must be read subject to the provisions of Code relating to place of suing as provided in Sections 16-20 of the Code. This would have been the...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab National Bank and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1987
Reported in: (1987)0CALLT702(HC),91CWN1150,(1988)ILLJ32Cal
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against order, dated 12th November, 1984 passed in Civil Rule No. 15273(W) of 1984. The respondent Sri Dilip Kumar De moved a writ application inter alia challenging the continuation of the order of suspension passed against him by the Punjab National Bank and also prayed for consequential reliefs on revocation of the order of suspension. On the said writ application, the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 15273(W) of 1984 was issued by this Court. It may be noted that the respondent writ petitioner Sri De impleaded Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division along with other respondents, viz., respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the writ petition. The aforesaid Rule succeeded before this Court by the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge on 12th November, 1984, but in the instant appeal preferred by the Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab National Bank and thre of i...
Tag this Judgment!Bata India Ltd. Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1987
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT907(Cal)
Suhas Chandra Sen, J.1. The dispute in this case is about footwear known as 'Miners' Boots'. These boots are also known in the market and sold as 'Industrial Safety Boots'. According to the petitioner, both the products are identical although sold under different names. Under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter described as the said Act), duty is levied on footwear and parts thereof at the rates set forth in the First Schedule to the said Act.2. The case of the petitioner is that until the end of 1973, the value of the said footwear was determined under Section 4(a) of the said Act, on the basis of their wholesale cash price. The value was computed in accordance with a formula laid down in an order passed by the Central Board of Revenue on 16th October, 1957. By the said order, the Board laid down that in arriving at the assessable value, a: uniform discount of 6% was to be deducted from the wholesale cash price of the footwear. The Board found that in most ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ors. Vs. Madura Coats Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC287,1988(17)LC440(Calcutta),1989(33)ELT29(Cal)
Bimal Chandra Basak, J.1. This appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Union of India is directed against a judgment and order dated 3rd December, 1984 passed by a learned Single Judge in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.FACTS2. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The writ petitioner at all relevant time carried on the business of the manufacture, inter alia, of cotton and blended yarns at factories at Madurai and Serampore. Apart from the manufacture of yarn, the writ petitioner was required by some of its customers, such as Duniop India Ltd., to arrange nylon and rayon yarn supplied by the petitioner. It is stated that such arrangement of rayon or nylon cords was called a Tyrecord Warpsheet. It was the contention of the .petitioner that no manufacturing process is involved in making warpsheets and no new commodity known to commerce or industry came into being when yarn was arranged or assembled to form a warpsheet. Further, acco...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Nurul Absa, Administrator, Old Malda Municipality Vs. Sukumar Podd ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)0CALLT477(HC),92CWN550
Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed on 24.12.85 by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. in Contempt Rule No. 15255 (W) of 1985, started on the ground of wilful disobedience of an order passed on 10.8.84 in Civil Rule No. 11959(W) of 1984 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondent No. 1, Sukumar Poddar along with 27 other persons (the respondents Nos. 2 to 28) filed an application, under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Sri Bijay Chatterjee the District Magistrate, Malda, and the conte-respondent No. 2, Sri Md. Nurul Absar. On the basis of that application for contempt a Rule was issued on 11.10.85 to show cause as to why the contemners-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 should not be committed to prison or otherwise dealt with for having violated the Court's order dated 10.8.84 passed in C.R. No, 11959(W) of. 1984. The Rule was made returnable on 20.12.85. Subsequently, on 24.12.85, the following order was passed by Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. :'Respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Dipak Sen Vs. Asiatic Society and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1987
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ102Cal
Prativa Bonnerjea, J.1. The Respondent No. 1, Asiatic Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1840 and thereafter, under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is a non-profit making body corporate formed with philanthropic and literary research objects.2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 1 in the post of 'Publication Supervisor' on part-time basis on 1st January, 1962 initially for six months. A copy of the bio-data of the petitioner, annexed at page 27 of the petition, establishes that the petitioner is fairly qualified and is an experienced man in this line and several important publications were made by the respondent No. 1 on account of the meritorious services of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, at the time of his appointment, he was assured by the respondent No. 1 that on expiry of the probationary period of one year he would be absorbed in the full time vacancy under the respondent No. 1. The appointment letter is...
Tag this Judgment!Partha Sarathi Ghosh Vs. Sulekha Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-23-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal61,91CWN1197
Sukumar Chakravarty, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 12th January, 1980 passed by Sri A. K. Das Gupta, the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 29 of 1970 in the matter of an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act in Misc. Case No. 21 of 1972.2. The facts in brief leading to the arising out of this appeal are as follows : -- Plaintiff No. 1 Sulekha Ghosh and plaintiff No. 2 Srilekha Ghosh, the daughters of late Sailendra Nath Ghosh filed the aforesaid partition suit being Title Suit No. 29 of 1970 against their brother defendant No. 1 Partha Sarathi Ghosh impleading their mother Mira Ghosh as pro forma defendant No. 2. The suit was decreed on 28th February, 1972 in a preliminary form for partition in respect of 1/4th share of each of the plaintiffs and on defendant No. 1's claim to buy the share of the plaintiffs under Section 4 of the Partition Act, the trial court allowed the defendant No. 1's claim to buy the share of plaintiff No....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »