Kolkata Court January 1995 Judgments
Dilip Kumar Biswas Vs. Sm. Susmita Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)1CALLT254(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgement and order passed by the learned 12th Court of Additional District Judge at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 45 of 1989, allowing the dismissal of the suit on contest with costs when this Appeal for reversal of the judgement and decree.2. Through the medium of this Appeal, the husband-appellant seeks to challenge the judgement and decree passed by the ld. court below in matrimonial Suit No. 45 of 1989.3. The respondent is an employee under the state of Bihar, who had undergone a marriage with the appellant on 26.2.82, according to Hindu rites, in Calcutta. After the solemnisation of marriage, both the spouses lived together as husband and wife, the duration of which never skipped over 7 days. The appellant made ceaseless endeavour to bring her back from the State of Bihar for due performance of conjugal obligations ; but the respondent turned a deaf ear to the entreaties of the husband-appellant. Even, the husband-ap...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Kumar Biswas Vs. Susmita Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC255
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned 12th Court of Additional District Judge at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 45 of 1989, allowing the dismissal of the suit on contest with costs when this appeal for reversal of the judgment and decree.2. Through the medium of this Appeal, the husband-appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below in Matrimonial Suit No. 45 of 1989.3. The respondent is an employee under the State of Bihar, who had undergone a marriage with the appellant on 26.2.82, according to Hindu rites, in Calcutta. After the solemnisation of marriage, both the spouses lived together as husband and wife, the duration of which never skipped over 7 days. The appellant made ceaseless endeavour to bring her back from the State of Bihar for due performance of conjugal obligations; but the respondent turned a deaf ear to the entreaties of the husband-appellant. Even, the husband-a...
Tag this Judgment!Essar Oil Limited and anr. Vs. the Owners and Parties Interestd in the ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT411(HC)
Baboo Lall Jain, J.1. This' suit was instituted by Essar Oil Limited and another against the Owners ann Parties interested in the Barge 'Pegah' on September 17, 1993 and was marked as Admiralty Suit No. 3, 1993.2. Pursuant to the application made by the plaintiff in this suit an interim order was made by this Court on September 17, 1993 which was to the following effect:'There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) upon the undertaking of Mr. Roy Chowdhury's clients to indemnify the parties affected, in case it appears subsequently that the order of arrest has been obtained wrongfully by Mr. Roy Chowdhury's clients.'3. The facts of the case may be stated shortly as follows :On January 25, 1993, a .Charterparty Agreement was arrived at between. the plaintiff No. 2 Scindia Essar (M.E.) Limited and Iran Marine Services, the owners of Barge 'Pegah'. The said Charterparty Agreement contained an Arbitration clause. It is not disputed that there was such a Charterparty Agreement between the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Motahar Hossain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC278
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J. 1. The petitioner has filed an application for anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence alleged to have been committed lies beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and the allegation of cruel treatment meted out to his wife is stale. The allegations are all tainted and founded on improbabilities entitling the petitioner to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.2. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been opposed by the State on the footing that there are prima facie tangible materials against the petitioner disentitling him to an anticipatory bail.. 3. The petitioner to invigorate his claim for anticipatory bail has made twin submissions. The first of such submissions is that the complaint is not maintainable, as it is struck by the extra-territoriality, as the offence complained of did not see the light of the day, at Birbhum but at Dhanbad. The extra-territoriality of the offence knocks out the hold plea of the tortute and ill-treatment. The complaint, accord...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Cherra Vs. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: (1995)2CALLT1(HC)
Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. This is an application for extention of time to file the award under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act. This application has been seriously opposed by the respondent on the ground that the Arbitrators have allowed the time to expire. Moreover it has been alleged that the Joint Arbitrators and in particular HSCL's nominee Arbitrator, Brigadiar V.K. Sawhney are totally biased in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The respondent has made the following allegations :-(a) At every stage the arbitrators heckled Sri J. P. Singh, Law Officer of HSCL who conducted HSCL's case, by asking him irrelevant questions and making caustic remarks against HSCL.(b) The remarks of the Arbitrators showed that they have prejudged the issues involved and accepted the claims of Cherra to be legitimate, when hearing of the reference was far from concluded.(c) During cross-examination of HSCL's witnesses, the Arbitrators took up the cudgels for Cherra and constantly put f...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Collr. of Customs Vs. Everett (India) Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT788(Cal)
C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated February 2,1983 setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, quashing the penalty of Rs. 7,695/- imposed on the respondent and directing refund of the penalty, if paid, forthwith.2. The Department has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Notification No. 132, dated December 14,1973 did not apply to the present case inasmuch as it applies to the case of refund and as it was not a case of refund the learned Single Judge wrongly relied on that and passed the order impugned by means of this appeal.3. We find merits in the submission of the Department and after reading the said Notification and the other relevant papers we are of the view that the Notification relied on could not be applied to the facts of the case. That being so, the imposition of penalty by the Department, could not be set aside on this ground. We also quas...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Ingot Company Limited Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ176Cal
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated June 30, 1989 passed by Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Civil Order No. 7297 (W) of 1989 rejecting the writ application. The Writ petition was filed by the petitioner company challenging the order, dated May 26, 1989 passed by the Regional Provident FundCommissioner, West Bengal, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, respectively under Section 71 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 demanding the liability of the petitioner Company in respect of the Provident Fund dues of respondent No. 2 Dr. Samar Ghosh who was held to be an employee of the petitioner company.2. The question that has been raised in this appeal is whether the appointment of the respondent No. 2 Dr. Samar Ghosh as a Part time Medical Officer of the appellant company will be termed as an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneo...
Tag this Judgment!Sachindra Nath Das Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)1CALLT272(HC),99CWN1071
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. Annexure-A to the writ petition is a latter issued by as many as twelve members of No. 6 Boroil Gram Panchayat requiring the Prodhan to call a meeting for his removal from the office of the Prodhan. It is submitted that on the date on which the notice was issued there were 21 members in the Gram Panchayat and out of that 12 members have issued the notice. The petitioner, who is the Prodhan, has challenged this notice on the ground that in the notice the Prodhan has been asked to convene a meeting for considering the resolution of his removal on 18.1.95 and that although the notice was dated 3.1.95, it was actually received by the Prodhan on 6.1.95. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner/Prodhan that since the Prodhan received the notice on 6.1.95 and. 15 days were not available to him, he could not convene the meeting on 18.1.95. as demanded by the persons issuing the notice, and, accordingly, the notice is bad in law. I find n...
Tag this Judgment!KutubuddIn Ahmed and anr. Vs. Board of Wakfs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1995)1CALLT451(HC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The petitioners claiming to be members of the Muslim Public and 'person interested in a wakf under the provisions of Section 6(5) of the Bengal Wakf Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed this writ application. The petitioners have challenged the functioning of the Board of Wakf and have prayed for inter alia the following reliefs;'(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commandnig the Respondents and each of them and/or their subordinates and agents to forbear from granting any permission or sanction under Section 53 of the Bengal Wakf Act, excepting leave of the court and also to forbear from acting any further on the basis of the resolutions of the Board adopted at its meeting held on 20th April, 23rd May, 27th May and 23rd May 1992 and to act in accordance with law.(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus restraining the respondent No. 11 from participating any further in any meeting either of the Board or of any purported sub-committee on the basis of the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT214(HC)
Shyamal Kumra Sen, J.1. The facts in short in respect of the application under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act are that the petitioner company has its factory at Choudwar which is a 100% Export Oriented Unit. The petitioner Company is engaged in manufacture and sale of High Carbon Ferro Chrome/Charge Chrome. The licenced capacity of the petitioner's unit was 50,000 tonnes per annum. 2. The respondent was at all material times operating a number of mines and its production was more than 6,00,000 tonnes per annum from the Sukinda Valley in the district of Cuttack. In fact the said 6,00,000 tonnes per annum can be and is being extracted from less than 200 hectares of mining lease area with the respondent. The respondent entered into agreement hereinafter mentioned to enable the petitioner to manufacture High Carbon Ferro Chrome/Charge Chrome and export the remaining excess Chrome Ore the value added product being the Charge Chrome. 3. Sometimes in March, 1990, it was agreed between the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »