Kolkata Court July 1996 Judgments
Anwar HossaIn Sheikh and Others Vs. Santi Kumar Mondal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal120,(1997)1CALLT210(HC)
1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 2nd June, 1977 passed by the District Judge, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No. 43/73 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30th January, 1973 passed by the Munsif 1st Court at Berhampur in Title Suit No. 153/71 where-under the plaintiffs suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession was decreed. The brief scenario of the case leading to this appeal is stated herebelow :2. The respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed the suit in T.S. 153/71 against the appellants who were the contesting defendants along with other proforma defendants for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties, confirmation of possession or in the alternative if the Court finds that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit properties, then to recover possession from the defendants after evicting them therefrom.3. It is case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties had originally...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ravi Vs. M/S. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ598,AIR1997Cal242
ORDERSatyabrata Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an award dated 14-8-1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT Case No. 5 of (sic) whereby and whereunder the said learnedtribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 14,000/- in favour of the claimants in respect of an accident which took place in between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on 18-2-1992, but held the owner of the vehicle liable therefor.2. This appeal having been filed by the owner and involving a question as to whether the appellant or the respondent No. 1 --(insurer) was liable to pay the aformentioned awarded amount, we are not concerned with the fact of the matter, suffice it to say that admittedly the appellant is the owner of a truck bearing registration No. AN 5101. The said truck met with an accident in between 6p.m. and 7 p.m. on 18-2-1992, as a result whereof a little girl was ran over and the house belonging to the claimant was damaged According to the appellant, earlier insurance in respect of the vehicle in quest...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Ninth Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 100CWN1096,(1998)IIILLJ363Cal
Nikhil Nath Bhattacharjee, J.1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the award dated April 28, 1983 made by the learned Judge, Ninth Industrial Tribunal at Durgapur in case No. X-27/80.2. The petitioner's case is that the Steel Plant, known as Durgapur Steel Plant belongs to the petitioner where various categories of workmen including security staff were employed. The conditions of service of security staff were governed by the Hindusthan Steel Security Force (Discipline and Appeal) rules. On December 22, 1968, the parliament enacted the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 and the said Act was brought into force in Durgapur Steel Plant on August 8, 1969. After the said Act was enforced in the Durgapur Steel Plant, its security force was necessarily to be wound up. It was actually taken over by the authority under the said Act with effect from August 17, 1970. The security force personal were, however, given option to join the Central Industrial Security Force ...
Tag this Judgment!Howrah Municipal Corporation Shramik Union Karmachari and ors. Vs. How ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT255(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. The petitioners have triggred off this Writ application against the respondents for mandamus commanding the respondents, their officers, agents, men subordinates superiors, successors-in-office to take steps, measures and action forthwith towards absorption of the petitioners in the substantive capacity, for certiorarl, Rule NISI and for other incidental reliefs which included amongst others the cost.2. To understand the contention, a few potent facts need be stated, as the vital aspect of the case, dwelling on regularisation or absorption in the municipality, a writ in the above nature could be issued, if the material proposition of fact and law is asserted by one about absorption and regularisation and denied by the other. There is much uproar over the issue when the court has been invited to render a verdict, since the petitioners are robbed off their rights of absorption and regularisation.3. Now to the facts: -The petitioners No. 3 to 9 alongwith others w...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Madhabi Dey and ors. Vs. Basudeb Bakuli and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT290(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J. 1. Heard the submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury being assisted by the learned Advocates Mr. Subhra Kamal Mukherjee, Mr. Debasis Roy and Mr. Rabindra Nath Mahato and the learned Advocate for the opp. Parties Mr. Sambhu Nath Roy being assisted by Mr. Amit Kr. Ghosh. Considered the materials on record. 2. The landlord decree-holder, by this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged a revisional order under Section 115A of the CPC passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th court, Alipore, in C.R.No. 259/94 dated 2.2.96. 3. The point involved in this case is that in the suit between the landlord and the tenant, the suit was decreed and in second appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed. Then the decree was put into execution and thereafter an application was made by the tenant judgment-debtor Under Section 47 of the CPC and that application was rejecte...
Tag this Judgment!Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti and ors. Vs. State of West Benga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT183(HC),100CWN900
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. These Appeals principally raising the question of constitutionality of West Bengal Land beforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Amendment Act) and West Bengal Land beforms (Amendment) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Amendment) Act were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In the main matter namely Appeal from Order No. 400/92 arising out of Matter No. 1367/87 (Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) two applications for amendment have been filed questioning the Constitutional First Amendment Act, 1951 in so far as it purported to insert Article 31B; Sections 6,7,8 and 2 of the Constitution (44th) Amendment Act, 1978 the Constitution (66th) Amendment Act, 1991 in so far as 9th Schedule of the Constitution was amended by inserting West Bengal Act No. 1980 Item No. 251 therein and the Constitution (78th) Amendment Act, 1995 in so far as the West Bengal Land ...
Tag this Judgment!Dablu Sheikh and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ3228
R. Bhattacharyya, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Session Judge in Session Trial No. 1 (10) of 1990, wherein the learned Court below did not convict Dana Sk. and Najir Hossain as they were found not guilty. But the learned Trial Court found Dablu Sk. and Anarul guilty of an offence committed under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both Dablu & Anarul were accordingly, convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life which gave rise to the initiation of the instant appeal for reversal of the order of conviction and sentence.2. Put it briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 21 -11 -83 at about 7-30 a.m. Moinul, since deceased, was attacked by the accused persons on way home, who suffered a number of assaults of which Salim, Dablu and Anarul were the authors, who employed Jhabas to do away with him. Islam a poor Rickshaw paddler came to...
Tag this Judgment!Navneet Spinning Mills Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(87)ELT36(Cal)
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. The Court : . Navneet Spinning Mills of Amritsar imported certain rags from . H.B. Textiles, Modern Business Park, Mytholurody Hebdex Bridge, West Yorkshire, U.K. who are suppliers of mutilated woollen rags. If the goods are mutilated woollen rags then they are permissible to be imported as free importable foods and do not figure in the negative list nor it is hit by Paragraph 156 of Import Export Policy, 1992-97. The aforesaid . H.B. Textiles shipped the consignment in 56 bales of total weight 24078 kg. as per Bill of Lading dated 25th September, 1995. The aforesaid goods were discharged at Calcutta Port in the first week of November, 1995.2. According to the writ petitioner , although the writ petitioners were entitled to keep the goods in a bonded warehouse without any payment they had to pay such charges to the Calcutta Port Trust Authorities. This order of warehousing the goods was passed in the middle of January, 1996 and according to the writ petitioners a...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Kochar Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: 1997(94)ELT62(Cal)
ORDERTarun Chatterjee, J.1. Before me the learned Counsel for the Customs Authority conceded that although thousands of writ petitions have been moved in this Court under similar situation and orders of similar nature have been passed by this Court to release the goods on the terms and conditions mentioned in those orders but nothing could be found for the last two or three years against the persons concerned in the matter of under invoicing of the value of the consigned goods disclosed by such persons. The learned Advocate for the Customs Authority only prays that liberty may be given to the Customs Authority to initiate proceeding against the concerned persons if something is brought to the notice of the authorities regarding under invoicing of the value of the goods which were imported to this country. The learned Advocate for the Customs Authority also produced an instruction received by him from the Assistant Collector of Customs, Group-Ill Calcutta from which it appears that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Grml Exports Ltd. Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT414(Cal)
ORDERTarun Chatterjee, J.1. Affidavit-in-opposition is to be filed within 3 weeks from date and affidavit-in-reply, if any, is to be filed within 2 weeks thereafter.2. Let this writ application be listed for hearing 6 weeks hence.3. Since I am not prima facie satisfied that any interim order should be granted at this stage, I refuse the prayer for interim order. Reasons are as follows:4. It is not in dispute that summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act have now been challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.5. At the time of moving this writ application, Mr. Pal, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, restricts his argument only to the question that as the documents which were asked to be supplied by the petitioner by all earlier summons were filed on the basis of such summons, further summons cannot be issued for supply of the same documents.6. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of authorities, disputes the submiss...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »