Kolkata Court November 1999 Judgments
SachIn Barick General Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sm. Parul Barick and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT265(HC)
S.B. Sinha, A.C.J.1. There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application.2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that both the appeal and the application should be disposed of treating the appeal on the day's list.3. This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 15th September 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder while granting leave to the appellant to induct a tenant, a Receiver was directed to be appointed for the purpose of keeping the accounts secretly in his custody and giving inspection thereof to the parties, if they so require. It was further directed that the monthly remunerationof the Receiver would come out from the income of the building and ultimately would be adjusted as against the cost of the suit.4. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. An Administration Suit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 series herein. Another group of contenders in the suit are respondent...
Tag this Judgment!U.N. Pandey Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR595],(2000)ILLJ1397Cal
D.P. Kundu, J.1. While the petitioner was working as Despatch Clerk in Sodepur Colliery under Eastern Coalfields Ltd. by virtue of a charge-sheet dated September 13, 1998 some charges were levelled against the writ petitioner. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet is quoted hereinbelow:-'Sub: Charge-sheet.This has been reported and also found afterpreliminary enquiry that there was adiscrepancy in despatching coal throughroad despatch in the month of August 1998.As per sale order No. 98070320 dated July10, 1998 the consumer 'Saraf Silicate' wasgiven sale order of 265 MT of goods 'B'Steam Coal from Sode 3 A.P. pit. But it wasfound that an excess of 33.460 MT of thesame grade coal was allowed to be lifted andthat the excess quantity was taken away by'Saraf Silicate', Nimakanali Road,Barakar. As a Despatch Clerk how you haveallowed the above irregularities without;proper verification which is an importanttask to be done on your part. You have failedto verify the quantities being despat...
Tag this Judgment!Durgapur Steel Plant Vs. Kisan Jawanjal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT594(HC),2000(1)CHN21,[2000(85)FLR585],(2000)ILLJ1015Cal
S.N. Bhattacharjee, J. 1. Respondents herein, all being contract labourers In the department of Blast Furnace Rellnlng (for short BFL) under the appellant No.2 filed a writ appllcation marked as Matter No. 3770 of 1994 alleging that although the Slate Government by Its notification dated 22nd February, 1982 prohibited the employment of contract labour In any process or operation in the jobs specified therein including BFL employed by M/s Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP) with effect from 1.3.82 by issuing notification under section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 they have not been absorbed as workmen under the appellant and have been still working as contract labours in the same department It is further alleged that petitioners were asked to appear before the Selection Committee on different dates for the post of unskilled workers and were required to submit application forms duly filed in with necessary documents on or before 19.3.1985 and since then a seri...
Tag this Judgment!West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Cal80,(2000)1CALLT178(HC)
G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.1. In this writ petition the writ petitioner, the West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Limited (WBEIDC, for short) which is a Government of West Bengal undertaking has challenged the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (Consumer Commission, for short) dated 29.12.97 by which the Consumer Commission directed the WBEIDC to execute and register lease deed in respect of plot No. Y-II in the Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Sector-V, Bidhannagar, Calcutta-91 within one month in favour of M/s. Silicon Valley Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the respondent No. 2 here in. The said order was passed by the Consumer Commission on a complaint filed by the complainant M/s. Silicon Valley Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Silicon Valley, for short) represented by its Managing Director, Dr. Salyajlt Chakraborty against the WBEIDC under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.2. The case of the complainant Silicon Valley Is stated hereafter...
Tag this Judgment!D.T.M. Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. West Bengal Housing Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1999
Reported in: (2000)2CALLT474(HC)
1. This is an application under section 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award dated 30.4.97 passed by the sole arbitrator.2. The basic points as taken by the petitioner is that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and misconducted in making award. The award is a speaking award.3. I have gone through the award and I find that the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 9.79.160.08P. along with interest and cost in favour of the respondents/award holder out of the total claim of Rs. 39.31.313.46P.4. Three parts of the claim as raised by the respondents/award holderwas allowed as follows :--(a) Work was delayed due to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the award holder is entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 70,808.08P.(b) On account of idle labour, the respondents/award holder was allowed a sum of Rs. 1,05.003/-.(c) On account of the increasement of the contractual period an award was granted in favour of the respondents/award holder for a sum of Rs. 4,73,552/-.(d) On...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Kumar Maitra Vs. Smt. Minu Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT216(HC),II(2000)DMC140
A Talukdar, J.1. This First Appeal ts directed against a judgment and decree dated May 29, 1991 passed by Shrl B. N. Chandra. learned Judge, Xlh Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2356 of 1984 thereby dismissing the suit preferred by the Plaintiff/Appellant for declaring that the Defendant/Respondent is not a lawfully married wife of the Plaintiff/ Appellant.2. Shorn of details the facts giving rise to the First Appeal can be put in a short compass. The plaintiff/appellant filed a plaint on 21 -12-94 before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta which was transferred for disposal to the file of the learned Judge. Xth Bench, City Civil Court. Calcutta and was registered as Title Suit No. 2356 of 1984. The plaintiff/ appellant inter alia prayed :(A) Declaration that the plaintiff did not marry the defendant in accordance with law at Dakshineswar or elsewhere on October 19, 1982 or on any other date as incorrectly recorded in a pretended certificate of Regist...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anita Alias Sona Goswami Vs. Sourendra Kanta Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT241(HC),II(2000)DMC126
A. Talukdar, J.1. Assailing the Judgment and decree passed by Shri T. K. Ghosh, the learned Additional District Judge. 14th Court. Allpore. 24-Parganas (South) in Matrimonial Suit No.45 of 1993 passed on April 5, 1997 the wife/Appellant has filed this First Appeal.2. The learned Judge by his impugned Judgment and order of decree, on the basis of the suit for divorce filed by the husband/Respondent under section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 granted a decree fordivorce against the wire/Appellant and declared that the marriage between the wife/Appellant and the husband/Respondent stood dissolved and she was entitled to receive a permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month from the date of the passing of Judgment and decree and refused to pass any other litigation cost as' It was prayed for.3. The factual matrix of Matrimonial Suit No. 45 of 1993, the judgment of which culminated in this present Appeal is to the effect that the husband/ Respondent (P-W.3) was an M.B.B...
Tag this Judgment!Bhutoria Valve Udyog Ltd. Vs. Biswanath Jhunjhunwalla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-18-1999
Reported in: (2000)2CALLT95(HC)
The Court1. This is an application in the nature of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling and or setting aside the decree dated 13th May, 1998, passed in Suit No. 404 of 1991 along with prayer for condonation of dealy, if any, also for further or other reliefs in connection thereto.2. The decree was passed as aforesaid on 13th May, 1998, while the application was filed on 15th June, 1998 as available from the record. However, although the application was not made within the prescribed period of one month time but the court accepted the explanation as given in the Supplementary Affidavit and condoned the delay, if any, in making such application.3. Therefore, the other questions are open only in respect of maintainability of the application as well as sufficient cause as to the question of recalling and/or setting aside the decree dated 13th May, 1998.4. The question of maintainability come forward because the application is made in the nature of order 9 Rule 13 o...
Tag this Judgment!Tapati Chakraborty Vs. Raghunath Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT470(HC)
S.B. Sinha, ACJ.1. This appeal is directed against a Judgment and order dated 13th November, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No. 17174(W) of 1997 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein was disposed of directing :--'No authority can be allowed to take any action in violation of the order of the court. So the panel prepared by the school authorities cannot stand and the same is hereby set aside and quashed. If any approval has been accorded by the D.I. concerned to the said panel that also stands set aside and cancelled. The school authority now shall proceed for holding Interview afresh Inviting all the candidates who were, at the time of the Impugned Interview, as well as the petitioner herein. After holding interview of all the candidates who were called previously and the petitioner, the school authorities shall proceed in accordance with law. It is made clear that if on the date of passing of the previous orde...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Calcutta Medical Research
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-01-1999
Reported in: (2000)75ITD484(Kol.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the CIT(A) order dt. 30th August, 1996 for the asst. yr. 1990-91 where the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty imposed by the AO under ss. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running a hospital-cum-nursing home in Calcutta. The assessee has two types of doctors engaged in the Institute. The first category of the doctors are the regular employees of the Institute and their service conditions are governed by the appointment order and instructions as mentioned at pp.67 and 68 of the paper book. Another category of doctors are called visiting doctors and they are specialists in their fields and have their own practice/engagement. These doctors applied and were selected after interview. Their appointment is governed by a separate order mentioned at pp. 14 and 15 of the paper book for a period of one year.Accordingly, they are called as honorary visiting doctors and were entitled for the hon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »