Kolkata Court March 1990 Judgments
P. Sengupta and anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas421(Cal)
Bhattacharjee, J.1. More than seven decades ago, Sir Lawrence Jenkins, speaking for the Judicial Committee in Krishnasami v. Ramaswami AIR 1917 PC 179, observed that even when a proceeding is admitted by the court beyond the period prescribed after an ex parte order extending the period and condoning the delay without any notice to the opposite party, according to the practice then prevalent in the courts in India, it was to be regarded to be a tacit term of such an order, however unqualified in expression, that it would be open to reconsideration at any later stage at the instance of the party prejudically affected thereby. The Privy Council, however, deprecated this practice as 'manifestly open to grave objection' and as leading to 'a needless expenditure of money and an unprofitable waste of time', 'creating elements of considerable embarrassment when the court finally comes to decide on the question of delay' finally. It may be noted that the decision in Krishnamsami AIR 1917 PC 17...
Tag this Judgment!Akkas Ali Alias Akkas Ali Middya Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT298(HC)
Amulya Kumar Nandi, J.1. The Sessions case ended in an acquittal of 21 accused persons charged under Sections 309, 207, 323 read with Sections 149 and 148 I.P.C. The son of one of the victims in the occurrence Mannan Sekh, who eventually succumbed to his injury, has preferred this revisional application.2. The opposite party contends that while State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal, the petitioner cannot challenge the court's finding. It cannot be laid down as a blanket proposition that a private complainant in a case initiated on a police report can in no circumstances prefer a revision. Ordinarily the court is very reluctant to interfere with the finding of acquittal in a revision preferred by a private complainant. In Satyendra v. Ram Narain : [1975]2SCR743 it was held that where the judgment of the Sessions Judge did not suffer from any manifest illegality and the interests of justice did not require the High Court to interfere with the order of acquitta...
Tag this Judgment!Tapan Kumar Hazra and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)1CALLT137(HC)
Susanta Chatterji, J.1. The present Rule was issued on 22.9.83 at the instance of the writ petitioners praying, inter alia, for a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the steps taken by the respondent No. 3, President, Ad hoc Committee, District School Board, as per Annexure 'A' to the petition. The panel concerned was prepared in 1983. Admittedly, life of a panel is not for an indefinite period. It is submitted by both sides that the said panel cannot be given effect to and has agreed that the same may be quashed.2. Another aspect of this case which is being seriously contested relates to the preparation of the panel and as to the authority under which such panel is prepared. Mr. Samanta, learned Advocate for the petitioners has strenously argued before this Court that under the Rules, the District School Board is the appointing authority and in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Rules framed under the Bengal Rural Primary Education Act, 1930, it is prov...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Malik Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2171
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. My learned brother Nandi, J. has held in his judgment to be delivered now that there is nothing on record to justify our intervention in revision in respect of the order of conviction passed against and the sentence imposed upon the accused-petitioner under Section 395/397 of the Penal Code condemning him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. I agree with him and also share his sense of shock and dismay at the fact that by the time we could find time in 1989 to hear this Revisional application filed in this Court in 1982, the petitioner had to fully serve out the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment.2. But suppose we ruled otherwise and held that the revision was to be allowed and the orders of conviction and the resultant sentence were to be quashed Who was then to compensate the accused for all the agony and strain suffered by him under an unlawful order of conviction and sentence ?3. It is true that under our Code of Procedure, an order o...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Forgings and Allied Industries (C.B.C.) Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas385(Cal)
Sengupta, J. 1. Upon the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party,the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Eigth Court, Calcutta, directed issuanceof summons against the petitioners, one of whom is a public limited companyand the other its managing director to answer charges under Section 141, readwith Section 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. In the petition of complaint, it has been, inter alia, alleged : (a) Against supply of steel rounds to the petitioner company, two cheques bearing No. 1277900, dated January 28, 1989, for Rs. 2,00,000 and No. 1277903, dated February 10, 1989, for Rs. 1,50,000 were issued in favour of the complainant's firm, namely, M/s. Standard Engineering Company, 40, Strand Road, Calcutta-1, by the petitioner-company acting through its managing director, i.e., the second petitioner, drawn on Indian Bank, Main Branch; Coimbatore. (b) In due course, the said cheques were presented with the complainant's bank, viz., Oriental Bank of Commerce,...
Tag this Judgment!Anjan Choudhury Vs. Anandaneer Co-operative Registered Housing Society ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Cal380,(1991)2CALLT17(HC),94CWN515
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. On areference being made by a Division Bench of this Court, the present rule has been referred to this larger Bench for disposal as according to the referring Bench, the same involves 'a very important question' decision whereon 'may lead to far-reaching consequences.'2. Under Section 86(1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 'anydispute relating to the affairs of a Co-operative Society' was required to be referred to the Registrar if the parlies thereto were as specified in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) to that sub-section and under Section 132(2)(d) of the said Act, no Civil Court would have any jurisdiction in respect of 'any dispute required under Section 86 to be referred to the Registrar'. The important question, according to the order of reference, is what were the disputes that were required to be so referred to the Registrar under Section 86(1)(d) and were accordingly not justiciable in a Civil Court and, the Rule in its entirety h...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoke Kr. Banerjee Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Cal409,94CWN1194
ORDER1. The petitioner, in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays, inter alia, for certain mutually exclusive orders for directing the respondents concerned to take delivery of coal mixed with the mining operation of fire clay upon payment of costs and expenses for lifting of such coal from the fire clay mine of the petitionerand to direct the respondents to enable the petitioner to carry on smoothly the fire clay mining operation of the petitioner in terms of the deed of lease dated August 2, 1975 and for quashing 'the' purported order 'if there be any', not to prevent the petitioner from carrying on the fire clay mining operation in terms of the aforesaid deed of lease. The respondent No. 3 Eastern Coal fields Ltd. has contested the case by filing an affidavit-in-opposition.2. Bereft of verbiage the short case of the petitioner is that by a registered deed of lease dated August 2, 1975, a copy of which has been annexed to the petition marked with the le...
Tag this Judgment!Central India Industries Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: [1990]184ITR242(Cal)
Susanta Chatterjee, J. 1. The present rule was issued on June 4, 1979, at the instance of the writ petitioner challenging the notice dated March 29, 1979, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessmentyear 1962-63 and the proceedings relating thereto on the ground that respondent No. 2, the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XVII, Calcutta, has no reason whatsoever to believe that any income of the said firm chargeable to tax for the assessment year in question had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. There is no material or information whatsoever on the basis whereof, respondent No. 2 could entertain any belief as alleged in the said notice. The alleged belief is mere pretence and does not exist and was not held in good faith. It is asserted that the petitioner-firm had fully and truly disclosed all the material and relevant facts necessary for the assessment of its income at the time of the original assessment and that there was no o...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyasagar Kejriwal and Ors. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT169(HC),[1991(62)FLR17],(1999)IIILLJ159Cal
S.K. Guin, J.1. This revisional petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore on November 30, 1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1983 whereby he dismissed the appeal, confirmed the findings and order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Sealdah in Case No. C-211 of 1980 but modified the sentence by reducing the amount of fine from Rs. 500 to Rs. 200 to be paid by each of the appellants before him.2. One Sankar Bhattacharyya, Insurance Inspector of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation filed a petition of complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah alleging that the accused persons being the partners of M/s. Bharat Udyog at 105/1, Ultadanga Main Road, Calcutta which were an establishment as defined in E.S.I. Act, 1948, were the principal employers as defined in Clause 17 of Section 2 of the said Act in respect of the said establishment. It was further alleged that the accused perso...
Tag this Judgment!Samir Ranjan Das Vs. Smt. Bela Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)2CALLT192(HC)
A.K. Chatterjee, J.1. An application made by the present opposite party Smt. Bela Das, under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was disposed of by a competent Judicial Magistrate on the 8th November, 1982 whereby he directed her husband, the petitioner herein, to pay a sum of Rs. 450/- per month as maintenance allowance with effect from the 20th October, 1981. Against this order the petitioner made a revisional application to this court, being Criminal Revision No. 489 of 1983, which was disposed of on the 26th April, 1984 wherein the finding of the learned Magistrate that the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance to the opposite party was not disturbed but the amount of maintenance was cut down from Rs. 450/- per month as ordered by the learned Magistrate to Rs. 350/- per month. About 19 months thereafter on the 25th November, 1985 to be precise, the parties decided to live together and filed a joint petition before the learned Magistrate which provided that the present opposite party temporari...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »