Kolkata Court August 1988 Judgments
G.S. Atwal and Co. Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Con ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal184,[1991]71CompCas280(Cal)
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act. The facts of the case are shortly as follows : --The petitioner and the respondent admittedly entered into eleven contracts whereby the petitioner was to construct eleven schools in Nalut, Libya at the cost of LD. 2,437,525,000. All the contracts were written contracts and all dt. 21-8-79. The contracts contain inter alia two clauses with which this Court is concerned in disposing of the application. Clause 25.1.--Retention money a) The Associate shall within the time specified in the Letter of Intent/Letter of acceptance deposit with the principala further sum in addition to the earnest money paid with the offer to work up to a rate of 1% of the value as initial retention money in cash or Government securities, performance bond by a Bank acceptable to the principal. b) To this sum shall be added the deductions from the Associates' interim bills for work done as specified under Clause 2.12 he...
Tag this Judgment!Radheshyam Kedia Vs. Sriniwas Pandit and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Cal75
ORDER1. The only question for consideration in this application is what is the scope of arbitration agreement dt. 28th Jan, 1981 between R. S. Kedia and Simil Kumar Dey and Srinivas Pandit. The relevant portion of the said arbitration agreement is set out hereinbelow :--'Whereas the parties above mentioned have executed a Hire Purchase Agreement today with regard to the Motor Vehicle TDV of 315 H.P. having 6 cylinders and painted bearing No. 692 011 000606 on the Engine No. 3440-73094472 on the chasis registered under Police registration No. WGT 1674 complete with accessories. Year of Manufacture 1981. This agreement witnesseth that we hereby agree that notwithstanding condition No. 15 of the said Agreement of Hire Purchase executed by us today all disputes differences claims arising out of the terms of the said Agreement of Hire Purchase with exception of the rights of the owners to seize the Article under all circumstances in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement and all the disputes ...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Jagadamba Coke Mfg. Enterprises and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal337
G.N. Ray, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge on Feb. 28, 1985 disposing of the five writ petitions concerning C.R. Nos. 14809(W) to 140812(W) of 1983 and C.O. No. 19444(W) of 1984. Against the said judgment disposing of the writ petitions by the learned trial Judge. Shree Jagadamba Coke ., Tentulia Coke Plant. G. N. Coke Manufacturing Co. Private Limited and Premium Fuels preferred appeal and such appeals have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this judgment because in all these appeals a common question of law and fact is involved.2. It appears that Premium Fuels did not move any writ petition but they made application for being added as parties in the pending writ petition and it appears that Premium Fuels were allowed to intervene in the pending writ proceedings and make submission.3. It appears that there are about 100 coke oven plants operating in Bihar and West Bengal out of which only one coke oven plant viz. Premium ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insulated Cable Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT106(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale amongst other of electrical insulated cables and owns and operates a factory for its said business at Shamnagar in the district of 24-Parganas, West Bengal. In the manufacture of the said electrical cables the petitioner is required to import from abroad a raw material called 'Kapton Polymide Film' (electrical insulating tape). During the period of February 1984 and January 1986 the petitioner imported diverse quantities of the said Kapton Polymide Film for which the petitioner's clearing house M/s. Reliance Corporation (P) Ltd. had duly submitted relevant bills of entry for home consumption classifying the product under Customs Tariff Heading 39.01/06(1). So far as the counter-vailing duty is concerned the same was kept blank. The Custom Officer at Air Cargo Complex, Dum Dum Airport classified the said articles under heading 39.01/06(1) of the First Schedule to the Custom Tariff Act 1975 and under item 15-A...
Tag this Judgment!Tandon Bros. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. and Union of India (Uoi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT263(HC)
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. These two writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner, Messrs. Tandon Brothers, involve determination of identical questions of fact and law and the reliefs made in the second writ petition are dependent upon adjudication of the earlier proceedings, and as such, the hearing of these two writ petitions is taken up together, by 'consent of parties.'2. The Civil Rule No. 13128 (W) of 1979 was moved on September 13, 1979, before Sabyasachi Mukharji, J (as His Lordship then was) inter alia, praying for the following reliefs :'(a) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents from not giving any effect or further effect of the impugned Order, dated 15th December 1977, Annexure 'E'.(b) to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce the records of the case so that on perusal of such records the impugned Order, dated 15th December 1977 (Annexure E) may be set aside and quashed and/or conscionable justic...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendra Nath Pan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT80(HC),1989(1)CHN299,(1994)IIILLJ290Cal
P. K. Mukherjee, J.1. The continuance of the departmental proceedings simultaneously with the criminal trial initiated on the basis of the first information report, dated 23rd June, 1987, against the writ petitioner, Amarendra Nath Pan, has been challenged in the instant writ petition. 2. At the time of admission of the writ petition, it appears that A.K.. Sengupta, J., issued civil order, together with interim order in terms of prayer (d) of the writ petition, which is set out hereinbelow: '(d) Ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from continuing with the domestic enquiries initiated against the petitioner in terms of the letters issued by the respondent No. 2 on 2nd July, 1987 and 12th October, 1987, and/or any other domestic enquiry relating to the charges in the criminal proceedings, being C.B.I., S.P.E. Calcutta Case No. R.C. 40 of 1987, till the disposal of the said criminal proceedings'. 3. Thereafter, on 16th May, 1988, the writ petition was mentioned for ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramish Francis Toppo Vs. Violet Francis Toppo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal128,(1989)1CALLT87(HC),1988(2)CHN241,93CWN165,1(1989)DMC322
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. I have no doubt that we cannot but decline to confirm this decree nisi for dissolution of marriage passed by the learned District Judge in the Divorce Suit under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, which has come up before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act. I am, however, of opinion that, for the reasons stated hereinafter, a decree for divorce a mensa et thoro. i.e., a decree of judicial separation should instead be passed in favour of the petitioner-husband against the wife-respondent under Section 22 of the Divorce Act. 2. In Swapna Ghosh v. Sadananda Ghosh : AIR1989Cal1 (SB) disposed of by this Bench, I have confessed my inability to appreciate the utility of retaining any longer the provisions of Section 17 of the Divorce Act of 1869, which compulsorily requires confirmation by this Court of the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Court and that too, by a Bench of not less than three Judges. It may be that the concerne...
Tag this Judgment!Sunit Kumar Mondal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal237,(1989)2CALLT31(HC)
ORDERSusanta Chatterji, J. 1. The present writ petition is one of the glaring examples as to how each and every problem of life is brought to the Court to find its solution. The writ petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for issuing a writ of mandamus calling upon the respondents and each one of them and their agents to show cause as to why the respondents should not be directed to act in accordance with law and also a writ of certiorari calling upon respondents to certify and to transmit all the records and/or proceedings and papers relating to the proposed agreement of ''Darjeeling Gurkha Hill Council' to this Court so that the members of the public may get information of the said proposed agreement and for an interim order directing the respondents and other officers to take immediate steps for not to use the word 'Gurkha' in the proposed agreement of Darjeeling Hill Council and to taks such other necessary steps which would be for the interest of the public at large.2. It is stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Amani Udyog Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: 1989(19)ECC207,1992(61)ELT439(Cal)
Susanta Chatterjee, J.1. The present Rule was issued on January 25,1984 and an interim order was passed to the extent.'the petitioners besides payment of the customs duty will pay 50% of the additional customs duty before clearing the goods in question. The petitioners will further furnish security for the balance 50% of the additional duty to be assessed on the goods which have arrived at the Port of Calcutta on vessel 'Vishya Karuna'. In case the contentions made by the petitioners succeed, then they will get back the sum which they will deposit by way of additional customs duty with interest at 13% per annum. And in case the petitioners fail to succeed, then the Revenue will be at liberty to utilise the 50% of the additional customs duty deposited with them. The Customs authority will also be free to realise the balance 50% for which the Bank guarantee has been furnished in accordance with law.'2. The writ petitioners have prayed in the main writ petition for issuance of a writ of m...
Tag this Judgment!Mihir Kumar Hazra Chowdhury Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ418Cal
G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st August, 1986 passed by the learned trial judge in Civil Order No. 8506(W) of 1985.2. By the aforesaid judgment the learned trial judge dismissed the writ petition made by the appellant inter alia challenging the propriety of refusal by the Central Government to refer the dispute relating to the industrial dispute arising out of dismissal from service of the appellant by his employer under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal.3. It appears that the Central Government in refusing to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal has indicated the reasons for such refusal and the substance of such reasons is that after holding a proper departmental enquiry the order of dismissal was passed against the appellant and the action of the management in dismissing the workman from service was based on the findings made in the said enquiry wherein the employee was found guilty of mis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »