Kolkata Court December 1995 Judgments
Dr. Ranjit Kumar Bhattacharyya Vs. Smt. Sabita Bhattacharyya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Cal301
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 1992 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24-Paraganas in Title Suit No. 90 of 1983 and preferred by the defendant No. I/appellant. The plaintiff/respondent filed the above-named title suit inter alia, praying for a declaration of her right to get maintenance as well as her right of residence in the property described in item No. 1 of the plaint schedule, being premises No. 95A, Tallygunge Circular Road, New Alipore, 24-Paraganas and also for arrear maintenance alleging inter alia, that she was the legally married wife of the defendant No. 1 Aappellant and their marriage was solemnised according to the Hindu rites and customs in or about 1967 and they lived together as husband and wife till November, 1977 and out of their wedlock, a child was born to them and thereafter she was driven away by the defendant No. 1 /appellant from her matrimonial home.2. The defendant No. I...
Tag this Judgment!Ramapada Sinha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ14Cal
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner Rampada Sinha (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) has prayed the Court for issue of a writ of and/or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents each one of them, their agents, servants, subordinates and assigns to forthwith cancel, withdraw and/or rescind the purported notice dated October 8, 1986, and October 7, 1987, contained in Annexure 'C' and 'J' hereof and to refrain from giving any effect and/or further effect and/or taking any step for further steps in terms thereof and/or thereunder and to act in accordance with law, 'further directing them not to give any effect or further effect and/or take any step or further step in terms thereof or seek to retire him (petitioner) before completion of the age of 60 years, along with the other reliefs prayed for therein, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein.2. It is cont...
Tag this Judgment!Bowreah Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT397(HC),1996(86)ELT28(Cal)
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a public Limited Company of which the petitioner No. 2 is one of the Directors. The said petitioners have, by way of this writ application, questioned an order of seizure of 158 cartoons of Velvet Fabrics and 292 cartoons of Silk yern detained/seized from the godown of the petitioner in terms of Section 110(1) of the Customs Act hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act.2. The basic fact of the matter is not dispute.The petitioners carry on business of manufacture of various textile materials. They obtained various export orders relating to textile materials and lady long coats wherefor they applied for advance DECC for the import of articles therefor in terms of Export-Import Policy 1992-97. It was granted three licenses which are either quantity based or value based or both quantity and value based. They have also famished bank guarantees or letters of undertaking to the Director General of Foreign Trade ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Narayan Kathgola (Firm) and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Cal)517,[1996]218ITR627(Cal)
Surya Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated November 18, 1987, passed by Sri N.C. Dey, Judicial Magistrate, Malda, in Case No. 107-C of 1986.2. A complaint was filed against the petitioners for violation of Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. In the meanwhile the accused persons preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and ultimately upon remand, the Assistant Commissioner cancelled the imposition of penalty for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Then the public prosecutor filed an application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for withdrawal from prosecution. The Income-tax Officer instructed another lawyer and opposed the withdrawal application.4. The learned magistrate by the impugned order refused permission and directed that the trial shall proceed. Being aggrieved by this order the accused persons have come up in revision. Hence,...
Tag this Judgment!Bridge and Roof and Co. (India) Ltd. and Union of India (Uoi) Vs. K.K. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT269(HC)
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the Judgment and order dated 20th July, 1987, passed by U.C. Banerjee, J., in C.R. No. 13874(W) of 1985.2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent against the order dated 20th September, 1985, issued by the Chairman and the Managing Director of Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. (a Govt. of Indian Enterprise), informing the writ petitioner/opposite party, Sri K.K. Mazumder, that in accordance with the instruction received from the Ministry of Petroleum, the Chairman & Managing Director relieved him of the duties as Director (Finance) of the said Company with immediate effect. The writ petitioner was directed to hand over the charge to the Chairman and the Managing Director immediately. By the said letter, the other benefits which the writ petitioner was enjoying were all withdrawn. This order dated 20th September 1985 was set aside by the learned Trial Judge by the order dated 20 July, 1987, and the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Pandey Vs. Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1995
Reported in: 100CWN231,[1996(74)FLR2027],(1997)IIILLJ1295Cal
A.K. Dutta, J.1. By this Writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Writ Petitioner Babu Ram Pandey (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has prayed the Court for 'a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus be issued compelling the Respondents and/or their servants or agents to rectify the date of birth of your Petitioner from January 15, 1937 to January 15, 1942.', along with the other reliefs prayed for therein, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein.2. The Petitioner contends that he was appointed with the Respondent Corporation in October, 1963. He is presently serving as Fire Supervisor, Grade-I, in the Fire Service Department. At the time of his appointment he could not produce his School Leaving Certificate as that was left with his relations some years back and he did not know about its whereabouts. He had stated his date of birth at the time of his appointment to be January 15, 1942. But the Dealing Clerk, who had filled in a Form, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Sneha Khemka Vs. K.L. Verma, J.S. Goi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1995
Reported in: 1996(63)LC533(Calcutta)
ORDERP.K. Samanta, J.1. This writ application filed by Smt. Sneha Khemka for and on behalf of her husband, Bimal Khemka seeks to impugn.an order of detention bearing No. F 673/89/95 -Cus. VIII dt. 22.8.1995 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 pursuant to which the said detenu has been put under detention on 28th of August, 1995 and kept in Presidency Jail, Alipore and on that very date the grounds of detention were served on the detenu. The detenu was found involved in under invoicing and evasion of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 21.53 lakhs (approximately) and hence the order of detention.2. On 16th June, 1995 the detenu was taken to the Customs House and it is alleged that the Customs Officer compelled him to make statement under duress and he was produced before the ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Bibi Vs. Md. Siddique
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT460(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. Defendant No. 1 in an appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 18th March, 1980 modifying the Judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 1978 passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 28/75.2. Factual secenario leading to this appeal summarily stated thus :-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in T.S. No. 28/75 for specific performance of contract of sale on the ground that the respondent No. 3, hereinafter referred to as defendant No. 1 had executed a register power of attorney on 30.3.1950 in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as defendants 2 and 3) authorising them to sell the suit property for Rs. 8,000/ to the plaintiff's. Pursuant to the said power of attorney the defendants 2 and 3 executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff's on 10th February, 1965, received an earnest money of Rs. 4,000/- and ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Ltd. and anr. Vs. State Consumer Redressal Forum and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT254(HC)
Samaresh Banerjea, J.1. In the instant writ application the writ petitioner Company has challenged the ad interim order dated 28th June 1995 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Commission, West Bengal being the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to the State Commission), on the ground of total lack of jurisdiction of the State Commission to pass such order. By the aforesaid ad-interim order the State Commission restrained the petitioner Company from selling their product of toilet soaps, detergent etc in the Indian market and abroad till disposal of the case. 2. The main challenge of the petitioners of the aforesaid ad interim order is on the ground of total lack of jurisdiction of the state Commission to pass interim order. 3. The other main ground of challenge is that the said order is void as the order was to passed and signed by the President of the Commission but only by the other two members. In course of hearing it was admitted by the parties that the proceedings in questio...
Tag this Judgment!Uco Bank Vs. Concast Products Ltd. (Now in Liquidation)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT266(HC),100CWN717
ORDERShyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. By consent of the parties, this application is treated as an Adjourned Motion' in the day's list. 2. The question involved in this application is that in view of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 if the suit pending in this Court was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal the same should be brought back to this Court in view of the fact that subsequently the defendant company went into liquidation during the pendency of the suit. 3. Mr. Debdatta Sen Learned Advocate for the Bank has referred to section 446(1) (2) & (3) of the Companies Act and has submitted that in view of the clear provisions in the Section the proceeding pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal should be transferred to this Court. 4. The Official liquidator has appeared and submitted that in view of the specific provisions in Section 446 of the Act the proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal should be transferred to this Court, otherwise comp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »