Kolkata Court August 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.
Tirupati Woollen Mills Ltd. (In Liquidation)andunion Bank of India Vs. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: (1998)3CALLT6(HC)
ORDER OF THE COURT We accordingly while disposing of the two applications and recalling our earlier Order dated 2 July, 1998 Order and direct as under : 1. The applications filed by Jaya and Sharma are allowed and our Order dated 2nd duly, 1998 confirming sate in favour of Divya is recalled, subject to Jaya and Sharma paying Rs. 70,000 each to Divya within one week from today. Such payment shall be a condition precedent for recalling our Order dated 2nd July, 1998. 2. The amount of Rupees forty lacs each deposited by Jaya and Sharma shall immediately be invested by the Official Liquidator in short-term Fixed deposits, automatically renewable until further Orders from us. 3. The entire amount of Rs. 1.30 crores, or whatever sum deposited by Divya. shall be refunded to it within 24 hours along with interest, if any accrued thereupon. 4. The appellant Union Bank of India shall deposit with the Official Liquidator latest by 18th August, 1998 an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs as tentative expense ...
United Bank of India Vs. Abhijit Tea Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Cal81
1. This is an appeal from a judgement and decree passed on 29th March, 1994 recording a compromise between the plaintiff bank and the respondent Tea Company.2. The Bank, the appellant, has pressed the case that there was no finalized agreement and such recording of compromise by invoking Order .23 Rule 3 was inappropriate.3. It is well known, that in the present amended state of the Code, parties are free to enter into a compromise in relation to their suit, and even settle matters outside the suit, provided the agreement is in writing and signed by the parties. Needless to mention that the agreement must also be lawful.4. The facts of this case are short and simple. On the 2nd day of July, 1990, following several negotiations the Tea Company wrote 'without prejudice' to the bank proposing to pay off its principal dues of Rs. 335 lac and interest in a certain manner.5. The scheme is detailed but the basics are as follows :on the principal sum for the five years immediately passed, inte...
Food Corporation of India Vs. Dilip Kumar Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ARBLR67(Cal)
ORDER1. This is an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator on 2nd Dec. 1997.2. By making this application Mr. Mukul Prakash Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel of this Court raised the following points :(1) Whether the proceeding can be proceeded under the old Act i.e. the Arbitration Act, 1940;(2) After becoming functus officio whether the Arbitrator can suo motu extend the time period for proceeding with the arbitration;(3) Whether the claim of the claimant i.e. the contesting respondent herein is barred by law of limitation;(4) Whether the Arbitrator exceeded the scope of reference; (5) Whether the reference is invalid;(6) Whether Union of India instead of Food Corporation of India was made the party wrongly or erroneously.3. Mr. Banerjee fairly submitted before this Court that although seven points were raised by him his real attack is restricted on point Nos. 1,2 and 4 as above.4. He contended that originally a ...
Ashutosh Jana Vs. Ananta Kumar Jana and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)3CALLT195(HC)
B. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This second appeal is at the instance of defendant No.2 In a suit for specific performance of contract and is directed against the Judgment and decree dated March 10, 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court. Midnapore in other Appeal No. 500 of 1986 thereby reversing those dated April 30, 1986 passed by the learned Munsif. Additional Court at Contal in other Suit No. 35 of 1986.2. The parties to the instant proceeding are all brothers. The plaintiffs, two of the brothers, filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract of sale of the property which was admittedly owned by defendant No.1. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 1 on November 6, 1976 entered into an Agreement for Sale of the suit property in their favour at the price of Rs. 2,500/- after receiving Rs. 2,000/- as earnest money. Subsequently the said defendant No. 1 sold away the suit property by a registered deed dated July 18, 1979 at a consi- deration o...
Yusuf GaIn and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT588(HC)
G. R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. The petitioners have been sentenced to different sentences including imprisonment for life for their conviction under section 302 IPC etc. by judgment and order dated 12.11.97 passed by an Additional Session Judge, South 24-Parganas, Alipore. They preferred the present appeal against their conviction and sentence on 6.1.98 and have also prayed for ball pending hearing of the appeal. They moved for ball before a Division Bench of this court earlier also, after filing the appeal but their prayer for ball was rejected by the Division Bench on 22.4.98. They have now prayed again for bail. It is true that the rejection of ball earlier does not necessarily debar praying for bail agatn later. The learned Advocate for the petitioners however refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., : 1978CriLJ651 and submits that the petitioners should be enlarged on ball pending the hearing of the appeal as the appeal is not likely to be he...
Kumarjit Roy Chowdhury Vs. Gopa Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: II(1999)DMC280
Sidheshwar Narayan, J.1. This revisional petition arises out of an order dated 31.2.1996 passed by Shri B. Mukherjee, S.D.J.M., Durgapur, in Misc. Case No. 138 of 1990 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner- husband has been directed to pay maintenance to the opposite party-wife @ Rs. 1,500/- per month w.e.f. the month of June, 1990 beside costs of Rs. 5,000/-.2. As against a claim of maintenance, initiated as long back as in the year 1990, the parties joined issue and, after a long pendency, the impugned order was passed of the late as on 31.12.1996. There was, however, no controversy raised that the opposite party was the legally married wife of the petitioner. The claim of maintenance was challenged on the ground that the opposite party was a lady of ill-behaviour and she had no adjustment in family life, meaning thereby, that the conjugal life was not to the choice of the husband-petitioner. On such a plea raised on behalf of the petitioner husband, the...
Premier Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Alliance Credit and Investments
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT562(HC),[2000]102CompCas456(Cal)
R. Pal J.1. I fully concur in the judgment of my learned brother who has narrated the facts in some detail. However having regard to the Issues involved in this appeal it is necessary to highlight and deal with certain aspects of the matter.2. The first Issue pertains to the construction of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as the Act). It was contended by the appellant that the language of section 22 must be given a wide Interpretation in order to effect the object of the Act. In my opinion while one of the objects of the Act, may be to help sick Industrial companies to survive by affording remedial measures, the other object is to prevent companies from becoming sick. The remedial measures afforded to an already sick company cannot be enforced in a manner which could tend to drive another healthy company to sickness. Section 22(1) thus provides for protection of a sick company so that its assets and its finances are main...
Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Ratanlal Transport
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT453(HC)
R. Pal, J.1. This appeal has been preferred from an order dated 15th January 1992 directing the filing of an agreement under section 20(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the appellant, the court lacked the territorial Jurisdiction either to entertain the application under section 20 or to pass any order thereon.2. According to the appellant only the court having jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of the agreement could entertain an application under section 20 of the Act. It is stated that the agreement had been executed in Bihar. The entire work and/or transaction had been carried onunder the agreement in Bihar and that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court it is submitted that as the subject matter of the agreement had taken place wholly outside the jurisdiction of this court, the order under appeal was passed without Jurisdiction. The appellants have relied upon M. Venkatosamlappa...
M/S. Tirupati Trading Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)3CALLT32(HC),1998(104)ELT618(Cal)
D.P. Kundu, J. 1. This appeal is arising out of judgment and order dated 23rd November. 1995 passed by S.B. Sinha, J. In Civil Order No. 8581 (W) of 1994.2. M/s. Tirupati Trading Corporation who instituted the writ proceeding being Civil Order No. 8581 (W) of 1994 claims to be a partnership firm registered with the registrar of firms. The petitioner claims that the partners of the petitioner are citizens of India and the petitioner is dealing in and carrying on business of Refuse for Joss Sticks. It is stated thai the petitioner started business of export in February, 1994 and on account of liberalised policy, the petitioner started export of Refuse for Joss Sticks. It is claimed that one of the partners of the petitioner in his individual capacity, at the material time, was working as a local handling agent and signatory of M/s. India Sales International, Rajbi Road, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafterreferred to as India Sales) for export of their goods from Calcutta Port and India Sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›