Kolkata Court September 1998 Judgments

Naresh Chandra Ghosh and ors. Vs. Archit Vanijya Viniyog Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)3CALLT269(HC)

S. B. Sinha, J.1. All these appeals arising out of a common Judgment and order dated 29.1.98 passed by Sri S. Baidya, 9th Civil Judge at Alipore. District South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 89/81 weretaken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common jdgement. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.2. The properties in suit being premises No. 9/4, Middleton Row, Calcutta was transferred to Smt. Prativa Ghosh and Smt. Pritibala Ghosh by the Offical Trustee of Bengal by an Indenture dated 23rd May, 1947. In the year 1961 Balai Chand Ghosh, the father-in-law of the aforementioned Smt. Prativa Ghosh and Smt. Pritibala Ghosh filed a suit alleging that he was the legal owner of the property and the said Prativa Ghosh and Pritibala Ghosh were his Benamdars. The said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 31.3.1962. An appeal taken against the said Judgment and decree was dismissed by an order dated 29.9.77 by this Court. Allegedly on 4.1.1978 Balai Chand ...

Monoranjan Mondal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

ORDER1. This is an application under Sections 10 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they are approved contractors of the Eastern Railway for quite a long time and they have executed diverse works under numerous contracts with such Railway for a period of about 15 years between 1978 to 1993. Disputes arose in respect of 145 contracts, and all the said 145 contracts were covered by the same and identical Arbitration Clause namely, Clause 63 of General Conditions of Contract.2. Under the Sub-clause (3)(i) of the said General Clause 63, a sole arbitrator is to be appointed by the Railways, in cases, where the claim in question is below Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and in cases, where the issues involved are not of a complicated nature.3. Under Sub-clause (3)(ii), two arbitrators are to be appointed in the manner laid in Clause 63(3)(b) for all claims of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and above, and for all ...

Union of India Vs. M/S. JaIn and Associates

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)3CALLT219(HC)

The Court 1. This is an application for recalling and/or setting aside the judgment and decree passed by this court on 28th April, 1997 in Award case No. 22 of 1997, The said decree was passed after the expiry of time fixed under the statute to make an application for setting aside the award after service of notice under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act dated 18.3.97. The petitioner also prayed that leave be given to the petitioner to file the application for setting aside the award.2. It is not in dispute that notice under section 14 of the Arbitration Act was duly served upon the petitioner on 21.3.97. The time for filing the application for setting aside the award under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act expired on 21.4.97.3. It is also not in dispute that no application was make by the petitioner within the said statutory period. The matter appeared for judgment upon award before me on 21.4.97. The matter was called on in the presence of both the advocates of the parties...

Ranadhir Basu Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)1CALLT179(HC)

B.M. Mitra, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against a Judgment of conviction against accused appellant No. 1, namely, Ranadhir Basu, under sections 301, 302/120B and 201 of in dian Penal Code and for the offence under section 302 of in dian Penal Code, the accused appellant is sentenced to death and he has been further awarded a sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default, to suffer rigorous Imprisonment for two years and, for the offence under section 201 of in dian Penal Code, the accused appellant is awarded a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default, to suffer imprisonment for a further period of one year.2. So far as the accused appellant No. 2 Krishnendu Jana is concerned, he is convicted of an offence under sections 302/120B and 302/109 of in dian Penal Code and, for the offence under section 302/120B of in dian Penal Code, he Is sentenced to death and he is also sentenced for a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in...

Dibyendu Mukherjee Vs. Sudipta Mukherjee

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)1CALLT389(HC)

D.B. Dutta.J.1. Order No. 88 dated 24th July, 1998 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 140 of 1993 of the second Court of Additional District Judge, Howrah forms the subject matter of the present revislonal application under section 115 of CPC.2. The case has a chequered career. A couple are fighting litigations both under the Hindu Marriage Act and section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The husband filed a suit for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the wife filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal life. Maintenance was claimed by the wife for herself as well as her minor child under section 125 of the Cr.PC and also under sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present application may be stated as follows. On 20.3.95, there was an order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore under section 125 Cr.PC awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 800 per month f...

Samiran Saha and ors. Vs. Jatindra Mohan Roy and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)3CALLT255(HC)

D. B. Dutta, J. 1. The present revisional application under section 115 CPC in directed against the order of the trial Court allowing an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.2. A suit was dismissed for default in appearance of the plaintiff on 30.11.94. The plaintiff filed an application under section 151 CPC praying for restoration of the suit on that very date. The said application was heard and the court rejected that application with the observationthat in view of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC section 151 could not be invoked. The plaintiff thereafter filed the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC on 2.2.95 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 9 and by the impugned order the court allowed the said two applications.3. Mr. Priyabrata Mukherjee, the learned senior counsel appearing for the defendent challenged the impugned order on the following grounds. It was contended...

Rajorshi De Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1999Cal60

ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. The writ petitioner is a student of MBBS Course in the R.G. Kar Medical College, Calcutta affiliated under the University of Calcutta.2. In July, 1997, he sat in the first MBBS examination. There are three subjects in the first MBBS examination i.e. Anatomy, Physiology, Bio-chemistry. There are three types of tests in holding examination, i.e, theory and oral, practical, internal assessment. Pass marks in respect of each subject is to be considered by adding up all the marks obtained by the candidate separately. Out of the three subjects the writ petitioner passed in physiology but he failed in internal assessment in, two subjects i.e. Anatomy, and Bio-chemistry. Each examination is to be followed by a supplementary examination, which gives a chance to failed candidates to cover up their marks to go for the further MBBS courses.3. The contention of the writ petitioner is that although he got chance of sitting in the external examination in July, 1997 in respect ...

Warren Tea Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 1999(108)ELT628(Cal),[1999]236ITR492(Cal)

Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. Interpretation of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), vis-a-vis a circular letter bearing No. 600 (see : [1991]189ITR126(Bom) ), dated 23rd May, 1991, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is in question in this writ application. 2. The facts shortly stated are as follows : The petitioner being a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, admittedly is engaged in growing, manufacturing and selling black tea. It also exports tea out of India. 3. A question arose as to the stage of grant of deduction required to be given in assessment of computation of income of such an assessee in view of various representations regarding problems faced by tea exporters. By reason of the impugned Circular No. 600 (see : [1991]189ITR126(Bom) ), dated 23rd May, 1991, the Board has laid down the following formula. Abbreviated profit and loss account Rs. Rs.Expenses1,200Domestic sales1,000Profits300Expor...

Tanushree Art Printers Vs. Rabindra Nath Pal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1999)3CALLT232(HC)

R. Pal, J. 1. I have had the privilege of reading the judgment of my learned Brother. While I concur with the views expressed by him, having regard to the fact that we have been unable to accept an earlier Division Bench judgment on one of the issues involved in this case. I would like to express my view in a few brief paragraphs.2. Two issues have arisen for our decision in this appeal. The first is the question of maintainability of an appeal from an order granting conditional leave to defend under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second relates to the merits of the order under appeal which arise for decision only if we decide the first in the affirmative.3. On the first issue a Division Bench of this court in M/s Merchants of Traders (P) Ltd. v. M/s Sarmon Put. Ltd. : 1997(1) CHN 286 has held that an appeal from such an order as is now under appeal before us, was not maintainable as a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In arriving at this decision the Divisi...

Smt. Kamala Roy Vs. the District Inspector of Schools and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1998)3CALLT458(HC)

1. The facts of the case of this petition is summarised as follows :2. Pursuant to an advertisement published by the Secretary, Duff Primary School. P.O. & P.S. Chinsurah. District-Hooghly, the petitioner submitted an application for the post of an Assistant Teacher. Accordingly, she was called to an interview along with other candidates and appointed by the Secretary of the School as an unapproved Assistant Teacher in the said School. From then on she had been continuing as an Assistant Teacher in the School. Another teacher Smt. Bharati Dutta resigned from her post, consequently, a post of an Assistant Teacher fell vacant on and from 15-7-1983 which given effect from 26th April, 1982. Therefore, the Maanglng Committee taking a sysmpathetic attitude as the petitioner was working as an unapproved teacher, recommended to the District inspector of School to appoint the petitioner in the above vacant post and to accord approval of the same.3. The petitioner has stated inter alia in the wr...