Kolkata Court February 1997 Judgments
Jaykrishna Basu and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal253,(1998)1CALLT50(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The petitioners who are admittedly owners of Plot No. 41/572 (earlier L.R. Plot No.572) measuring an area of 4.47 acres comprised in R.S. Khatian No.217 J.L. No.102 of Mouza-Shibpur have filed this Writ application for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the notification dated 18.10.96 Issued by the Deputy Secretary, State of West Bengal in terms of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, as contained in Annexure 'F to the writ application, (nter alia, on two grounds, namely, (1) that the direction in the said notification purported to be under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act is bad in law as there is no emergency, particularly in view of the fact that Indian Oil Corporation Limited had entered into negotiations with them for purchase of the said land and (11) there is no public purpose involved in the said acquisition.Although no other point had been taken in the Writ petitioner, in the affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Mohan Majhi Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Majhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: II(1997)DMC214
D.P. Sircar-I, J.1. In this criminal revisional application under Section 401 and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the order dated 27.2.1991 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Purulia in Misc. Case No. 81 of 89 of his Court has been challenged.2. The present opposite party Kaushalya Majhi filed a petition before the learned S.D.J.M., Purulia against the petitioner in this revisional application Chandra Mohan Majhi @ Hembram under Section 125, Cr. P.C., alleging that Chandra Mohan married heron the 8th paisakh, 1394 B.S. corresponding to 22nd April, 1987, according to Hindu religious rites but subsequently resorted to torture upon her, assaulting her severely and driving her out of his house. Kaushalya prayed for maintenance from Chandra Mohan claiming that Chandra Mohan had sufficient income from cultivation as well as from business in vegetable.3. Chandra Mohan challenged the petition denying flatly that there was any marriage at all between Kaushalya and himself and that he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Dowell Schlumberger (Weste ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)1CALLT486(HC)
Sidheswar Narayan, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated October 4, 1996 of a Single Judge of this court, by which an application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to set aside an award dated June 10, 1995 was dismissed. 2. A dispute relating to the claim for rentals of equipments and for supply of chemicals arising out of a contract between the parties was referred to the joint Arbitrators, Mr. Alok Chandra Gupta (nominated by ONGC) and Mr. R.P. Bhatt (nominated by Dowell) both retired judges of High Court. At the close of the reference proceeding, there was an Award in favour of the claimant (Dowell) directing the appellant (ONGC) to pay the following amounts with interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from 1st April, 1994 till the date of payment as also a sum of Rs. 25,000 as costs of arbitration : (1) Claim for rentals of equipment (payable is US$) (2) Claim for difference in exchange rate on the invoice for supply of chemicals (payable in Rupees at...
Tag this Judgment!Dalhousie Properties Ltd. Vs. M/S. Kali Engg. Works (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal348
ORDER1. Two applications were made in Suit No. 308 of 1989. One, made by the plaintiff on June 25, 1996 for a judgment upon admission, and the other made by the defendant on September 30, 1996, for amendment of the Written-Statement. On the prayer made by both the parties the applications were directed to appear and today, the two applications did appear in the Day's Cause List. Again on the prayer of the parties, both the applications were heard analogously and are disposed of by this order.2. The facts, briefly would appear to be, that the defendant was a tenant in the suit premises under the plaintiff. By a notice dated January 20, 1989, which admittedly was also a notice under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, served on the defendant, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy.3. This suit being Suit No. 308 of 1989, was instituted by the plaintiff on April 26, 1989, for eviction of the defendant and recovery of the suit-premises, and for other consequential re...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tara Devi Jalan Vs. Radhesyam Ruia and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal271
1. This is a suit for eviction, on the ground of reasonable requirement for the plaintiff's own use and occupation, as also for the use and occupation of some of the family members of the plaintiff, in particular the plaintiff's youngest son, his wife and their infant daughter.2. The plaintiff is a widow aged 54 years. She is the owner of the five storied building situate at No. 68-A/'l-B, Nimtala Ghat Street, in Calcutta to which, I shall hereinafter refer as, the building. She is occupying and residing in the second floor flat and also a kutcha room on the terrace of the building together with her three sons and their respective families. In all there were twelve members of the family, including the plaintiff, residing in and occupying the second floor flat, which is approximately 1600 square feet.3. Plaintiff instituted this suit on March 4, 1992 against Mahabir Prosad Ruja who was the then tenant in the fourth floor of the building which shall hereinafter be referred by me as the '...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta DioceasIn Trust Association (P) and anr. Vs. Mrinal Chowdhury ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT88(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the same order, passed by a learned single Judge of this court, dated 2nd July, 1992 in C.O. No. 6261 (W) of 1992. The two appeals are at the instances of the respondents to the main writ application. The appellants in FMAT 2453 of 1992 were impleaded as parties to the writ application and the appellant in FMAT No. 2285 of 1992 had been added as party on the date the impugned order had been passed, on the basis of an application preferred on behalf of the appellant for such addition on 18th of June, 1992.2. The subject matter of challenge before the leaned trial Judge was a notice, issued by the Burdwan Municipality, asking the writ petitioner to stop the work of construction in terms of a plan sanctioned by the said Municipality on the ground that there was scope for some doubt about leasehold right of the land and/or as regards validity of the grant.3. As we have already indicated, the leaned trial Judge disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobinda Prasad Das Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT490(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Let the notice showing service upon the respondents filed in court today be kept on record. No one appears for the State respondents. Mr. Satyajlt Mondal, learned Advocate, appears for the respondents Nos. 4, 6 to 14 and 16 to 24 and files a Vakalatnama on their behalf. Let it be also kept on record.2. Heard the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner, Mr. P.K. Ray appearing with the learned Advocates Mr. P. Nath and Mr. Prabir Banerjee and the learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 4, 6 to 14 and 16 to 24, Mr. Satyajit Mondal. Considered the materials on record.3. The grievance of the Writ petitioner is that his service has been terminated without giving any opportunity to him to show cause. It has further been alleged that no notice was ever served on him. The petitioner was working as job assistant of Ramganga Gram Panchayat and he was arrested in connection with a case under Section 498A/325 of the Indian Penal Code,...
Tag this Judgment!Rajindra Ram Vs. Coal India Limited and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal289
ORDERBhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J.1. This appeal being an appeal from original Order No. 557 of 1994, was taken up for hearing by this Division Bench and during the hearing of this appeal, an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act was presented for condonation of initial 103 days' in filing the memorandum of appeal. 2. Accordingly, a question arose whether the court can entertain this application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act in an appeal which is pending and which is, on the face of it, defective. 3. The appeal was against the order dated May 20, 1994, passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prabir Kumar Mazumdar, (as His Lordship then was), in Matter No. 1651 of 1993. As per the usual and long standing practice prevailing in the Original Side of this Court, as a prevalent, acting under Chapter 31, Rule 29(b) of the Original Side Rules, and having the force of law under Chapter 40, R. 3, the appellant was allowed to file the memorandum of appeal without certified copy of the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Pravat Kumar Saha Vs. Dilip Pramanick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal326,II(1997)DMC587
ORDERD.P. KUNDU, J. 1. This appeal is arising out of a judgment and order being Order No. 31, dated 14th February, 1996 passed by Shri A.N. Sen, the ld. District Judge, Barasat. North 24-Parganas, in Act VIII Misc, Case No.5 of 1994 dismissing the said Misc, Case on contest but without cost.2. The Act VIII Misc, Case No.5 of 1994 was instituted by Pravat Kumar Saha, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') by filing an application under Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the Ld, District Judge at Barasat, 24-Parganas (North) praying that appellant be appointed guardian of the person and property of the minor Shri Debankur Pramanick alias Bapi (hereinafter referred to as 'Bapi') till he attains maturity and/or majority. The respondent Dilip Pramanick (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') who is the father of Bapi also filed an application under Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for recording 'no objection' of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Vikram Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anirox Pigments Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas804(Cal)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This judge's summons has been taken out by Anirox Pigments Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the transferee company', for dissolution without winding up of the transferor company, namely, Vikram Organics Private Limited, pursuant to grant of sanction to the scheme of amalgamation with the transferee company.2. When the matter was taken up a point arose as to whether in view of the provisions of Section 394A of the Companies Act, 1956, a notice of this application was required to be given to the Central Government at this stage also, notwithstanding the fact that such notice had been given at the stage of grant of sanction to the scheme of amalgamation.3. Having regard to the nature of the question raised, Mr. S. B. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel, was requested to act as amicus curiae in the matter.4. Mr. Mukherjee submitted that Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides for the court to sanction a compromise or arrangement between a company and its cred...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »