Kolkata Court November 1998 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.
B.P.M.E.L. Sramik Union and ors. Vs. Appellate Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Cal4,[1999]96CompCas398(Cal)
Tarun Chatterjee, J. 1. In this writ application the writ petitioners who are registered trade unions of Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Limited (B. P. M. E. L.) have challenged an order of the Appellate Authority which is at page 210 marked as annexure 'Q' to the writ petition. By the said order of the Appellate Authority the prayer of the writ petitioners for revival of the company was rejected, and the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) was confirmed. Before 1 take up the question that was raised on behalf of the writ petitioners, I may state certain facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ applications. 2. The writ petitioners are the registered trade unions under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') is a company which has now become a sick company. References were made under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision...
Oil and Natural Gas Commission Ltd. Vs. Dilip Construction
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: AIR2000Cal140
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This application made by the petitioner under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the award dated 30th July, 1996 passed by an Arbitrator being chief Geologist, now Deputy General Manager (Geologist), West Bengal Project, ONGC Limited, the petitioner herein.2. Upon perusing the award it appears that the award is reasoned award.3. By making this application, the petitioner challenged the award on various grounds which are as follows :a) There was no material before the Arbitrator to come to a conclusion and pass an award in favour of the respondent;b) Principle of evidence was not followed by the Arbitrator;c) The Arbitrator had committed legal misconduct in getting the vital documents and materials which should have shown lights to adjudication;d) The award passed by the Arbitrator is outcome of non-application of mind;e) Interpretation of 'Force majeure' Clause by the Arbitrator is unreasonable;f) The claim is barred by law of limitation...
Neo Plastic Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(111)ELT33(Cal)
ORDERY.R. Meena, J.1. By this petition petitioners have prayed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed for refund of excess wharf rent amounting to Rs. 60,960/- to the petitioners alongwith interest.2. Petitioners have imported 1050 bags (68 m3) Acrylic Plastic Scrap per SS STETNHOFT covered under Bill of Entry No. 1-664, dated 11th October, 1985 Lot No. 420/85, Line No. 88 and for clearance of the said goods duly appointed M/s. Harshad Rayn. Doshi of 51, Ezra Street, Calcutta, who are operating as Customs Clearing and Forwarding Agents. The said imported goods arrived at Port of Calcutta on or about 20th August, 1985. The clearing agent who was engaged as clearing agent of the petitioner for clearing the consignment of goods, as aforesaid, could not clear the said consignment within a reasonable time as the said consignment was detained by the customs authorities for special examination under Section 70 of the Customs Act, 1963 between the period from 23rd August, 1985 to 1st Novembe...
Mahamayatala Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Charu Chandra Baner ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT450(HC)
S.Banerjea, J.1. The present revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against an order dated October 10, 1996 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 172/1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore, South 24-Parganas dismissing the appeal and affirming the order dated 28th March, 1991, passed in Misc. Case No. 27 of 1990 by the learned Assistant District Judge, First Court Alipore, rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is not a Co-operative Society registered under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, but is a proposed Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the said society). The said society made an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Executive Court in a proceeding under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case No. 27/90 arising out of Title Executive Case No. 18/81, Inter ...
BipIn M. Pujara Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: 1999(63)ECC261,1999(107)ELT298(Cal),[2003]133STC123(Cal)
1. The question involved in this application is the date from which a notification issued in a Gazette comes into effect.2. The basic fact of the matter, which is admitted, is as follows:602 and 900 pieces of spherical roller bearing over 60 mm diameter of Russian origin were shipped from Dubai on August 20, 1996. A shipping manifest was filed by the owner of the shipping, Marine Containers Service India Pvt. Ltd., after the same was handed over to them by shipping company Natvar Parikh Industries Limited. The two bills bearing entry Nos. 0711 and 0732 were filed by the clearing agent on September 10, 1996 and presented before the concerned appraiser for assessment on September 11, 1996. On September 11, 1996 the vessel Tiger Creek in which the aforementioned assignment was being transshipped obtained permission at about 16.25 hrs. At 5.30 P.M. the Finance Bill No. 2 of 1996 was presented wherein a proposal was made to raise customs duty on ball or roller bearing from 25 per cent + 2 p...
Ganapati Commerce Ltd. Vs. the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: AIR1919Cal261(1),(1999)3CALLT98(HC)
1. The Court: In this application the petitioner has prayed for winding-up of the company on the basis of allegations that having acknowledged its dues to the petitioner, the company had failed to pay its debt and that the company was insolvent and its continuance to exist constituted a threat to the commercial morality of the public. It would appear from the pleadings of the parties that, between October 17, 1994 and January 19, 1995 the petitioner had advanced and the company had recieved an aggregate sum of Rs. 4,25,00,000 by way of a 'packing credit loan'. The loan was to be repaid by the company, in terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties, by submitting export documents within a month from the date of the advance, and in any event within 180 days therefrom. Except for a sum of Rs. 22.20,000, inspite of demands, the company had failed to pay any portion of the balance amount of Rs. 4.02,80,000. According to the petitioner the company was indebted to the petitioner...
Poonam Lachwani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT261(HC),1999CriLJ910
G.R. Bhattacharjee. J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of detention of the detenu passed in exercise of the power conferred by section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended)(COFEPOSA, for short). The applicant who is the wife of the detenu has filed this application on behalf of the detenu. The order of detention was passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department on the 15th June, 1998. The said order of detention was executed against the detenu on 19.6.98 and since then he ts in detention in the Dum Dum Central Jail, Calcutta. The detention, as the order purportingly announced, was considered necessary with a view to preventing the detenu in future from smuggling goods. From the background narrated and reflected in the said detention order it appears that on 27.7.97 the detenu, posing himself as a uniformed officer ...
Britannia Industries Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR57(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice dated April 7, 1995, issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 148 of the Act relating to the assessment year 1992-93. After hearing the matter on August 19, 1998, a prima facie view was taken that the notice under Section 148 was illegal and that should be quashed. But subsequently after going through the materials before signing the orders it was found that the notice has been issued under Section 148 of the Act within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, in that case it is not relevant whether the assessee has declared fully and truly all materials facts for the assessment. What is relevant is whether any income has escaped from the assessment which is liable to be taxed in the relevant assessment year. 2. The date of year ending of the accounting year is March 31, 1992, and the notice under Section 148 has been issued on April 7, 1994, for the assessment year 1992-93. ...
Sri Ashutosh Sengupta Vs. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT298(HC),[1999(82)FLR335]
The Court:1. As the subject matter of consideration in both the writ petitioners is an order dated 18.9.98, both the writ petitions, with the consent of the learned counsel for either parties have been taken up analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. W.P. No. 2104 of 1998 is filed by the Managing Committee of the School is question, questioning the order being Memo. No. 24/9163/G dated 18.9.98 being annexure 'F' to the writ application, passed by the Committee constituted under section 24 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 for dealing with the case relating to the disciplinary proceedings against teachers and non-teaching employees of the recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) of the Management Rules. By the Impugned order, the action of the Managing Committee placing the respondent No. 7, Headmistress under suspension has not been approved.3. A.S.T. No. 1901 of 1998 is filed by Smt. Kalyanl Mondal, Headmistress of the...
Supriya Chakraborty (Nee Paramanik) Vs. Champak Kumar Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT213(HC),II(1999)DMC5
D.B. Dutta, J.1. This is an application under section 115 CPC directed against order No. 90 dated 13.1.98 and order No. 95 dated 2.3.98 passed by the learned second Additional District Judge in MAT Suit No. 75 of 1993.2. The opposite party husband filed the suit under section 27 of the Special Marriage Act for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He subsequently filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC on 11.12.97 for amendment of (lie plaint for addition of an alternative prayer for a decree of nullity of marriage for non-consumatlon of the marriage between the parties and also for consequent amendment of the cause title of the plaint. The respondent wife opposed the prayer for amendment by filing written objection on 5.1.98. The court below was of the view that in view of the averments already made in the original plaint to the effect that there was no cohabitation between the parties, the alternative prayer for a decree of nullity of marriage unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »