Kolkata Court September 1997 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.
Prafull Kumar Saha Vs. Ranjit Kumar Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT9(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. The defendant has filed this appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 4.1.96 passed by Sri Gopat Banerjee, learned Judge. 8th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 211 of 1982.2. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this appeal had filed the aforementioned suit on the ground that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent from Baisak 1384 B.S. as also on the ground of subletting to one Mantu Kundu. Before the learned trial Judge, the defendant, while purporting to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant stated thus:'In reply to para 1 it is denied that the Defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff. This defendant was inducted as a tenant by one Manindra Mohan Saha and the death of the said Manindra Mohan Saha his wife Thakurdasi Saha became the landlady who was taking rents from the defendant. After the death of said Thakurdasi Saha the plaintiff had been recovering rents as rent collector on behalf of the landlords. The plaintiff i...
Wellman Incandescent India Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1997
Reported in: 1997(96)ELT31(Cal)
ORDERVinod Kumar Gupta, J.1. The point involved in this petition is very short. The parties are agreed that the writ petition along with application for stay may be taken up for final disposal and the same are disposed of without any affidavit in opposition being filed thereto. However, the respondents do not admit any of the allegations in the writ application.2. The point for consideration is the right of the petitioner to file appeal against the order dated 17-1-1991 passed by the Additional Collector (P & V) of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Collectorate. The petitioner's grievance is that it had been prevented all along from filing the appeal because of the non-communication of the order from the Additional Collector to the petitioner. The grievance also is that since the petitioner could not get certified copy of the order dated 17-1-1991, it could not prefer an appeal because the Rules cast an obligation for every intending appellant to file the memorandum of appeal along with cert...
Gillette International Vs. R.K. Malhotra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT371(HC)
U.C. Banerjee, J. 1.The law as regards impleadment of a party has now been settled by a long catena of cases resting with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji & Others, : AIR1997SC64 wherein the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms observed that where the presence of the respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no relief is sought, he is a proper party.2. Turning attention on to the contextual facts, be it noted that in an application under sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 for relief against oppression, the Company Law Board on a petition filed by the applicant impleaded Gillette International. The order was passed ex parteand without affording an opportunity of hearing to the impleaded party. The contextual facts depict that a recalling application was moved before the Company Law Board and upon hearing, however, the order of impleadment was set aside and subsequently notices were se...
Amit Kumar Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ974
ORDER1. All these four applications being inter-related were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The writ application being W. P. 16143(W) of 1997 was filed by Ajit Kumar Agarwala and Amit Kumar Agarwala praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :(a) A writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus be issued commanding the respondents for the production of the body of your petitioners in the Court and your petitioner be set at liberty;(b) Injunction restraining the respondents from interferring with the personal liberty of the petitioners or from further arresting the petitioners without leave of the Court.3. In the said writ application it appears that certain interim orders had been passed by this Court. On 18-8-97, two other writ applications being W.P. No. 16674(W) of 1997 and W.P. No. 16659 were filed by Ajit Kumar Agarwalla and Amit Kumar Agarwalla respectively and on that date rule nisi had been issued and directions for affidavit had als...
M/S. Shiva Steel Re-rolling Mills and anr. Vs. West Bengal State Elect ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT424(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J 1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to supply electrical connection in the factory of the petitioner No. 1 at Pakuria, Post Office Lakshanpur, P.S. Domjur, District Howrah.2. The petitioner is admittedly a consumer of electrical energy. It is also admitted that such supply of electricity is made in terms of the provisions of the indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Rules framed thereundertogether with the conditions of supply. Such supply is being made to the petitioner by the first respondent in terms of an agreement dated 23.4.87. According to the petitioner various inspections have been carried out wherein defects in the metering system had been found, where the first respondent had been raising bill on average basis. As regard an earlier disconnection, various proceedings were also initiated in between 19.8.92 to 5.11.92 and an order of injunction was granted by the court subj...
M/S. Ranigunj Chemicals Works Vs. Learned Judge, 4th Industrial Tribun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT32(HC),1998(1)CHN115
The Court1. In this writ proceeding a challenge is thrown for issuance of writs in the nature of Mandamus and Prohibition against the concerned respondents being directed against order No.28, dated 20.12.96 passed by the learned Judge, 4th industrial Tribunal recalling the award dated 29.6.94. The resume of facts as emerging from the records appears that by an order of reference dated 30.12.93 for determination of issues as to whether (a) dismissal of Sri Ram Subhag Roy is Justified (b) what relief, If any, he is entitled to. The parties to the dispute did not appear before the concerned Tribunal for adjudication of the issues referred to above and as such no step was taken. Accordingly,-the Tribunal passed a no dispute award dated 29.6.94. The said award dated 29.6.94 was'publlshed under section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act. 1947 by an order No. 564-IR/ 11L-46/92 dated 27.3.55 issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department. Much after public...
Dr. Zainal AbedIn Vs. Sri Sree Kumar Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Cal339,(1997)2CALLT459(HC)
ORDERShyamal Kumar Sen, J.1. This is an application by the respondent No. 1, returned candidates for dismissal of the Election Petition Under Section 86(1) read with Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The contention of the respondent No. 1, the applicant, herein is that the election petition was filed on 21-6-96 and one of the contesting candidates was not joined as a respondent. It has been submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to join all the contesting candidates as required Under Section 82(1) of the said Act in as much as the applicant also prayed that he should be declared duly elected. It has been alleged in the petition that the trial of Election Petition is deemed to have commenced on 6th August, 1996, being the date fixed for respondent to appear before the High Court and to answer the claim made in the petition. It has also been alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that the time to fi...
Ali HossaIn Vs. Baby Farida Khatoon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2762
ORDERDibyendu Bhusan Dutta, J.1. The instant revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the Award of maintenance allowance passed in Case No. 100 of 1994 (T. Rule 190 of 1994) of the Second Court of Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah, Calcutta. The wife opposite party No. 1 filed the case under Section 125, Cr. P.C. against the husband petitioner claiming maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month for herself and at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month for each of her two minor children alleging that the husband used to subject her to physical torture and drove her out of his house on 25-4-93 and that since then, she has been living with her minor son and daughter in her father's house and the husband did not provide any maintenance to her. The wife also alleged that the husband was an employee of Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation having an income of Rs. 3,500/- per month.2. The husband as opposite party ...
J.M.D. Medicare Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1997
Reported in: [1998]232ITR467(Cal)
Samaresh Banerjea, J. 1. In the present writ application, the petitioner-company has prayed for, inter alia, a declaration that petitioner No. 1 is an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Admittedly, petitioner No. 1-company is a Medical Diagnostic Centre. Petitioner No. 1-company purchased a nuclear magnetic resonance scanner, Siemens Magnetom P-8, from Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Bmed, D. 8520, Erlangen, Germany, on a part payment and the balance of the amount is to be paid by the petitioner on supplier's credit for five years. The payment is to carry an interest at the rate of 8.1 per cent. per annum. The said rate of interest of 8.1 per cent. per annum was fixed in consultation with the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi.2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the interest so payable by petitioner No. 1-company is exempted from income-tax in accordance with the provisio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›