Kolkata Court July 1996 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.
Phibro Gmbh and anr. Vs. Consolidated Fibers and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT467(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J. 1. This is an appeal arising out of an interim order, granted by a learned single Judge of this court, whereby the present appellants, who were defendants in a suit instituted by the sole respondent, had been restrained from pursuing the cause filed by them in a foreign High Court until further orders. From the impugned order it appears that the learned trial Judge proceeded on the basis of uncontradicted averment's made by the plaintiff in its application before the trial court as because, on behalf of the appellants/defendants, no affidavit-in-opposition, had been filed but merely a question to the absence of jurisdiction in the trial court to pass such order had been raised as a question of law. 2. From the copy of the application, made before the learned trial Judge, annexed, on behalf of the appellants to the application now preferred in connection with the present appeal, it appears admitted that all the parties to the litigation entered into a contract...
Sri Barini Kumar Das Vs. Sri Manindra Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT396(HC)
Debi Prasad Sarkar-II, J.1. This is a revisional application under Section 115 of the CPC. The facts, in short, are as follows;-2. That on 8.10.66 a Misc. Case under Section 26 F of the B.T. Act was filed for pre-emption but it was dismissed. In Appeal it was allowed and the present Opposite party entered into possession of the disputed land. The present petitioner-party then filed a Writ petition challenging the order passed in Misc. Appeal before the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court. But that Writ petition was also dismissed. Against that, FMAT No. 495/68 was filed and it was allowed by the Division Bench. Thereafter in C.R. No. 3624 Justice A.K. Sengupta made absolute the Judgment passed by the learned lower Court and set aside the Judgment of the Appellate Court. The present petitioner-party filed and application under Section 144 of the CPC for restitution and for damages since 1967. On the other hand, the present Opposite party filed an application before Justice A.K. Sengupta...
Donald and Macarthy (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(89)ELT53(Cal)
ORDERAltamas Kabir, J.1. The writ petitioner Company claims to be incorporated under the relevant laws of Singapore and carries on business of import and export of various materials from Singapore. According to the petitioner Company, it authorised one Shri Om Prakash Chowdhury, Advocate, as its lawful Attorney to represent it before the Customs authorities, Courts in India and/or any other Government authority, or body, relating to and/or in connection with any consignment and to appoint such legal practitioners as he thought fit and t proper for the above purposes and also to do all such deeds, acts and things as may be required for the purpose of reshipment of the consignment in question. The power of Attorney granted by the petitioner Company in favour of Shri Chowdhury is said to have been counter-signed by the Indian High Commissioner at Singapore.2. According to the petitioner Company, in terms of the contract entered into by and between the Company and M/s. M.K. Enterprises, th...
Ms. Anima Roy Vs. Fourth Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1093Cal
Asok Kumar Chakravorty, J. 1. By an order No. 10 dated March 29, 1996 the Fourth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner workman to hear her application for interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, until the workman filed her written statement. The said order passed by the learned Tribunal has been challenged in this writ application as illegal and invalid.2. Heard the learned advocates for the petitioner and the respondents.3. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under Section 15(2)(b) since the matter has got to be disposed of within 60 days from the date of order of reference and since such interim order has got nothing to do with adjudication of the reference on merit that the learned Tribunal was not justified in insisting upon filing of the written statement by the petitioner workman before disposal of the prayer for interim relief. It was, however, submitted on behalf of the respondent company t...
Benoy Kr. Ghosh and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT352(HC)
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.1. Prodhans of four Gram Panchayets which are part of a Panchayet Samity of Murari Block-I have challenged the authority and/or power of the said Panchayet Samity to implement developmental work within the areas of their respective Gram Panchayets.2. Evidently the execution of the work relates to different schemes namely Jawahar Rozgar Yojana Minimum Wages Scheme, Indira Abasan Yojana, Social Forestry and Employment Assurance Scheme.3. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the schemes which were undertaken by the Respondent/Murari Block-I Panchayat Samity for execution are either Centrally Sponsored Scheme or Schemes on resource sharing basis between the Central Government and the State Government or wholly State Sponsored Scheme. In other words neither of the schemes taken up for implementation by the said Respondent, Panchayat Samity is based upon the funds and/or resources of the Gram Panchayat concerned.4. The challenge thrown by the petitioners is base...
Washabarie Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Cal)693
ORDERR. ACHARYA, A.M. :These appeals are instituted by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1989-90. As both the appeals are heard together they are disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. ITA No. 4119/Cal/91 (asst. yr. 1987-88)In this appeal the assessee has raised the ground that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim of the assessee denying liability to pay interest under s. 215 on the ground that there is no mistake apparent from the record without assigning any valid reason.3. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that in the assessment order the AO ordered 'charge interest if any'. In the demand notice the demand for interest under s. 215 of the Act was raised and served on the assessee. The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee denies its liability for payment of any such interest and hence the impugned assessment order is erroneous. While deciding the ground regarding charging of inte...
In Re: Madhab Chandra Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal123
ORDER1. This application for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed against the respondents directing them to produce Master Mukul Saha son and Kumari Bakul Sana, daughter, in this Court who are said to be aged about 14 and 12 years respectively. The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were married on 22nd January, 1981. Out of the said Wedlock, one son and the daughter, who are named hereinbefore, were -born. The petitioner and his wife started living separately from 30th September, 1985. Thereafter, they filed an application before the District Judge Murshidabad which was registered as Mat. Suit No. 31 of 1988 and by a judgment and order dated 18th January, 1989, the said application was allowed. The said judgment reads thus:--'Both the parties are present with their learned Advocates. The suit is heard and and the parties are examined on S.A. This is a suit for divorce by mutual consent filed under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case of the parties in...
Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Sahadev Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT319(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant Indian Iron & Steel Company Limited is the appellant. The plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for partition and declaration of 2/3rd share in the suit properties. The suit plots 2938 and 4121 In Khatian No. 215 and 3100 respectively of Mouza Hirapur originally belonged to one Makhan Mondal. After his demise his son Bholanath Mondal inherited the suit properties. Bholanath Mondal died childless leaving behind his widow who also subsequently died. Bital Mondal, the surviving brother of Makhan Mondal inherited the suit land. Makhan Mondal's other two brothers Charan and Bipin predeceased him. Bhim Mondal was the son of Charan and Arjun Mondal was the son of Bipin. Arjun and Bhim could not inherit anything as Makhan Mondal was survived by his full brother Bital Mondal. Bital Mondal, however, by way of family arrangement divided the suit properties into three parts and allotted 1 /3rd share to himself and also to the sons of his brothe...
Lawab Alias Labab Ali Molla Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT420(HC)
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Session Judge against the appellant alias Labab Ali Molla in S.T.2(1)94 for having committed an offence of murder of his brother Jahurali.2. The learned court below passed an order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-with hard labour, in default, for two years more.3. The story briefly.The case of the prosecution reveals the savage outburst of temper over a trifling matter which snatched away the life of one of the brothers who was born of the same womb, one of whom is the appellant before us.They used to put up in the same ancestral bastu but in different mess.The fateful incident occurred on 27.3.91 over the felling of bamboos situated on a land of common ownership. The brothers fell out against each other and by the blow of a ballam, on the umbelical region of Jahurali of which the appellant was the auth...
Banshi Dhar Rai Vs. Gadadhar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: 100CWN1035,[1997(75)FLR867],(1998)IIILLJ1091Cal
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.1. The appeal arises out of Judgement and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk on August 8, 1989 in Case No. 183C of 1987.2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on the basis of a complaint filed by Labour Enforcement Officer (central) & Inspector appointed under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act of 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Act made on the basis of an alleged inspection on December 16, 1986 when the former found more than 20 Contract Labours being engaged by the accused O.P. who were doing work without there being a valid license under the said Act. The accused is also stated to have omitted to maintain different registers, including registers of wages, register of master rolls, register of fines, register of advances, register for deduction for damages or loss, register of over-time and register of persons employed. Accordingly, the accused are alleged to have contravened Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »