Kolkata Court July 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sm. Sushila Debi and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT259(HC)
P.K. Mukherjee, J.1. The present writ petition was moved before this Court on December 11, 1986 challenging the order of requisition passed by the District Magistrate, Howrah in exercise of power Under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act II of 1948'). By the said order, the writ petitioners were directed to hand over possession to the Executive Engineer, Howrah Improvement Trust on December 11, 1986 at 10 a.m.2. At the admission of the writ petition, this Court directed the respondents to maintain 'status quo' as in December 8, 1976 till December 15, 1976 and further directed the respondents not to take any further step, as stated in the said order. The said interim order was extended in presence of, Mr. A.C. Maitra and Mr. Soumitra Das Gupta, who appeared for the State, on December 15, 1986 and subsequently Shamsuddin Ahmed, J. on February 17, 1988 allowed the application filed on behalf of Calcutta Metropolitan...
Hiralal Roy Vs. Sm. Arati Chatterjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1989
Reported in: (1989)2CALLT315(HC)
S.K. Mookherjee, J.1. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta on 8.1.1980 in Ejectment Suit No. 384 of 1975. The respondents instituted a suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable requirement for their own use and occupation and default. The case, as laid down in the Plaint, is that the defendant was a tenant in respect of three rooms, one small kitchen and also having common user of bath, filtered water tap and privy on the ground floor of premises No. 12/6, Nilmani Dutta Lane, Calcutta, at a monthly rental Rs. 75 payable according to the English Calendar Month ; that bath and privy, which were in common use could be approached by the landlords only through the eastermost room of the defendant's tenancy; the defendant, however, for all practical purposes, was using and enjoying the bath and privy and filtered water supply, as mentioned above, as the plainti...
Bengal Waterproof Works Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1989
Reported in: 1989(44)ELT406(Cal)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule was obtained by Bengal Water Proof Works Limited & Anr. praying inter alia for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the classification of the rubber-sheet manufactured by the petitioners as approved by the respondent No. 4 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-VI Division being No. 1/79 dated 16th August, 1980 with regard to rubber-sheets combined as cotton textiles and No. 1/80 dated 13th March, 1980 with regard to rubber-sheets combined with man-made fabrics should not be treated as a final classification of the said rubber-sheet and for further direction of disposal of the petitioners' several applications for refund of excess duty realized from them and for cancelling the directions of the respondents as contained in the letter No. C-37 dated 7th January, 1981 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the communication dated 20th of January, 1981 of the Inspector of Central ...
Godrej Soap Ltd. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-1989
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT198(HC),[1991]70CompCas248(Cal),1991CriLJ828,94CWN723
Bhattacharjee, J. 1. Questions of considerable importance appear to be involved in this revision. The first question is as to whether, when anincorporated company or any other body corporate is accused of any offence, it can invoke the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution mandating that 'no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.' And, secondly, even if it can do so, would such protection extend to its directors, officers or employees who are not roped in as accused or co-accused ?2. In view of Article 367 of the Constitution making the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897, applicable for the interpretation of the Constitution and the definition of the word 'person' in Section 3(42) of that Act, a company or other body corporate is to be ordinarily treated as a 'person' for the purpose of the Constitution. There is no room for doubt that the word 'person' in the former Article 31(1) and now in its successor Article 300A, appli...
Pieco Electronics and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Smt. Tribeni Devi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Cal135
ORDERPabitra Kumar Banerjee, J.1. These two appeals are on behalf of the defendant Pieco Electronics, and Electricals Ltd. (shortly the Company) and they arise out of two suits being T. S. Nos. 28 and 89 respectively of 1984 commenced by the plaintiff-respondents in the Court of the 4th Assistant District Judge, Alipore for a decree for eviction and mesne profits in respect of two flats and two garages described in the schedules to the respective plaints on the allegations inter alia that by two unregistered deeds of lease dated 1st February 1955 the defendant was inducted into the suit premises by Property Development Trust Private Limited at a monthly rental of Rs. 225/- and 250/- respectively for a period of 25 years and that in terms of the said lease the defendant was required to deliver up vacant possession to the lessor on the expiry of the lease. As the defendant failed and neglected to vacate the disputed premises even after the expiry of the tenure of the lease, the plaintiff...
Samnuggar Jute Factory Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR221(Cal)
ORDER--Enhancement of interest under s. 214--Initial assessment set aside by court--Fresh assessment made in compliance with court directions--Interest enhanced onthe basis of subsequent assessment--Initial assessment was regular assessment--Issue of notChloride India Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 38 (Cal) applied.Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present rule was issued on September 17, 1979, at the instance of the writ petitioner, Samnuggar Jute Factory Co. Ltd., praying, inter alia, for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel and/or withdraw the notice dated September 5, 1979, issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act and to forbear from giving any effect to and/or taking any step whatsoever in pursuance of the said notice on the ground that the order alleged to have been made on January 31, 1975, by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1972-73 was itself the subject-matter of the writ proceedings in...
Shri Shyamal Kumar Bhattacharyya Vs. Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Eng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ389Cal
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. Fair play and fair treatment ought to be the most accepted methodology of a Governmental action. This is no longer in the realm of consideration but a well-settled principle of law. It is a 'soul of natural justice' and as such would have to be given a full play in all Governmental actions and in the event of there being a departure therefrom, Law Courts ought to rise up to the occasion and declare the same as being opposed to justice, equity and good conscience. To remedy the wrong is a plain exercise of judicial power and there ought not to be any hesitancy in thatdirection.2. The observations of the Supreme Court inthe case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India reported in : [1978]2SCR621 seem to be very apposite. The Supreme Court observed:'Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. Thu...
Dr. Basant Kumar Parida Vs. Indian Institute of Technology and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-1989
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT261(HC)
Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.1. Normally the Writ Court ought not to interfere of intervene in matters of selection of teachers by the duly appointed Selection Committee in an Educational Institution since the persons constituting the Selection Committee are in a better position to appreciate the merit of the candidate. Interference with the findings of such a Selection Committee in effect would mean and imply usurpation of powers of the Body on which law has conferred the same. The normal rule, however, proceeds on the basis of fairness and lack of malafides. In the event of there being contra action, if found by the Law Courts, the Law Courts would be within its jurisdiction to intervene and interfere and set right the wrong.2. The concept of fairness is no longer in the realm of consideration for the Law Courts but it is now well-settled as a principle of law. The Educational Institution ought to be guided by such a concept and the same ought to be the most accepted methodology to be a...
Luxmi Printing Works Ltd. and ors. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companie ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1989
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas442(Cal),94CWN412
Bhattacharjee, J. 1. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioners in these two cases is that the impugned prosecutions are barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code. The alleged offences for which the prosecutions have been launched and processes issued are punishable under Section 162(1) and Section 220(3) of the Companies Act with fine only and having undisputedly been filed beyond six months after the alleged defaults were made, would be barred under Section 468 of the Code, unless they can be treated as 'continuing offences' within the meaning of Section 472 of the Code. The only question, therefore, arising for our consideration in these cases is whether the offences punishable under Sections 162(1) and under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act are 'continuing offences' within the meaning of Section 472, Criminal Procedure Code. An affirmative answer will warrant the discharge of the rules ; but a negative answer would require us to mak...
Sadhan Roy Vs. Biresh Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1989
Reported in: (1990)1CALLT238(HC)
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. These two appeals are taken up for hearing by treating them as included in the day's cause list.2. Since both the appeals involve common questions, they can be and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The case has a long history which is being recounted in order to appreciate the controversy between the parties and its resolution by the present adjudication.4. The appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Writ Petitioners) in both these appeals are brothers. The dispute between them pertains to the plant, machinery, superstructures and a portion of land forming part of premises No. 32, Feeder Road, Calcutta. The aforesaid subject matter of dispute will be referred to as 'the property in question' or 'the disputed property' in the course of this judgment. The appellant claims to have acquired leasehold rights in respect of the land and superstructures from their owners under two registered Deeds both dated April 7, 1971, and also the ownership of the plant an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »