Kolkata Court February 1999 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.
Secretary, Parnasree Club Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Cal197
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. The petitioner being a Secretary of a Club, viz., Parnasree Club which in its turn is a registered organisation under the Societies Registration Act has sought for relief in the form of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with law by acquiring the land under Dag Nos. 590 and 593 situate at Parnasree Behala for the purpose of building a Park for public of that locality, and further direction upon the Municipal Authority not to mutate the name of any private respondent in respect of the said plots of land and further a Writ of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce and certify the whole record so that conscientious justice be done by quashing the order passed in C.O. No. 4178 (W) of 1993.2. The aforesaid reliefs are claimed on the basis of the facts as stated in the writ petition and substance of which is mentioned hereunder.3. The subject-matter of the land being Dag Nos. 590 and 593 of Khatian No. 3627 under Mouza B...
Tarak Singh and ors. Vs. Jyoti Basu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Cal354
ORDERPinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. The writ petitioners have filed this application inter alia praying for :--(a) A declaration that the action of the respondent No. 1 is oppressive, arbitrary, unconstitutional and unexceptionable for which exemplary damages should be imposed upon him; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each of them' to cancel, recall, rescind and/or withdraw the allotment of plots in Salt Lake City made by and on behalf of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of West Bengal, the respondent No. 1 herein; (c) A writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court all records relating to allotment of plots in Salt Lake city by and on behalf of the Hon'ble Minister so mat conscionable justice may be done by quashing the same and also for other ancillary reliefs. 2. During the hearing of this application the respondents were directed by this Court to produce the records in respect of such allotment in favour...
Bidhan Chandra KrishIn Viswa Vidyalaya Vs. the Association Design Plan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (2000)1CALLT495(HC)
The Court :1.This is an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the validity of the award dated 25th March, 1996.2. I have perused the award and I find the award is non-speaking award giving a financial benefit for a sum of Rs. 77.00.000/- in favour of the claimant/respondent herein together with interest pendente lite at the rate of 696 per annum on the said awarded amount from the date of entering into reference till the date of making the award and cost assessed at Rs. 50,000/-. The award also speaks about Interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the award until payment is made by the respondent/petitioner herein to the claimant/respondent herein or the date of the decree whichever is earlier. In addition thereto nil award is given in favour of the respondent/petitioner herein. .3. By challenging the award Mr. Gopal Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. AJay Dutta, learned Advocate raised various points which are sp...
Subasish Deb Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT386(HC)
ORDERThe Court 1. The only question which arose in this application is that whether the family as mentioned in Article 33(1) of the West Bengal Amendment Act IV of 1998 includes the brother within the meaning of the said word 'family'?2. The facts of the case is that the petitioner and his brother is the owner of the entire premises No. 49/13B, Hindusthan Park, P.S. Gariahat, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The petitioner is a bachelor. The petitioner states that one Debaslsh Deb is the only brother of the petitioner who also resides in the same ground floor of the same premises and dependent on the petitioner. The said ground floor has been divided into two lots. The petitioner Is the owner of one lot of the said ground floor of the said premises and his brother Is the owner of the half portion of the said ground floor. For the purpose of gift of the said property in favour of his brother, the petitioner took necessary steps for registration of the Deed of Gif...
Simon Rajan Vs. Anita Simon Rajan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT137(HC),I(2000)DMC116
The Court 1. The plaintiff instituted the suit fn the form of an application under section 10 or section 23 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 whichever will be applicable in the present case.2. The cause of making such alternative relief is that the husband/ petitioner made out case of adultery as well as physical and mental cruelty or desertion simultaneously as against the wife.3. The petitioner/husband served a notice of making this application and filed the Affidavit-of-Service along with other incidental papers to establish that service was effected upon the respondent. In addition thereto, he produced a certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar, Original Side of this court wherefrom it appears that the respondent did not appear either in person or by Advocate. Let the Affidavit-of-Service and other incidental papers along with the Certificate issued by the concerned Deputy Registrar be kept with the record.4. Since no denial was there, I was inclined to proceed on the basis of Ord...
Dipannita Pal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT511(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The brief facts leading to the filing of present writ application are that the petitioner was selected by the trustees of the trust dated 28.6,92 (Copy of the trust deed is annexure 'A' to the writ petition) whereby provision has been made for admission to some students of Subarna Banik Parentage in the Carmlchel Medical College. By the said trust, the trustees three in number have been conferred the power to make the selection and nominate candidates in M.B.B.S. course in the said Medical College. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been so selected by the trustees and intimation of her such selection was made by a letter dated 31.8.98 addressed to the Principal of the said College (annexure 'E'to the writ petition). However, one of the trustees R.N. Maltick, respondent No. 6 herein appears to have addressed a letter to the Principal of the College in question dated 28.8.98 requesting the Principal not to allow the vacant seat to anybody as the nominee of...
Modi Korea Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. Appcon Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT285(HC),1999(2)CHN107
R. Pal, J.1. This appeal Involves the question of the Jurisdiction of a single Judge, who has been given the determination to hear and dispose of arbitration matters, to entertain applications under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Act.)2. The facts giving rise to the question are briefly stated. The respondent does the business of rendering radio paging services. It procures pagers from the manufactures and appoints distributors to sell or lease the pager units to the consumers. According to the appellant the respondent was one such distributor and that in terms of the agreements between the resondent and the appellant, the respondent was to pay lease rent to the appellant. It is the appellant's case that lease rent of several lakhs of rupees fell due and payable by the respondent to the appellant.3. In September 1996 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant In (T.S. No. 361 of 1996) before the Second Munsiff at Allpore pr...
Smt. Arti Bhartia Nee Bhagat Vs. Piyush Bhartia
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT251(HC),II(1999)DMC35
B. Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code') Is at the instance of a wife and is directed against Order No. 74 dated September 16, 1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court, Allpore In Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1997 thereby rejecting an application under section 10(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 ('Act'). 2. Previously the petitioner filed a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 4 of the 1996 under section 10(1) of the Act claiming Judicial separation. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on July 3, 1996. 3. On or about April 1, 1998 the petitioner filed the aforesaid application under section 10(2) of the praying for rescinding the decree for Judicial separation passed earlier in her favour on the grounds stated therein. The said application gave rise to the aforementioned Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1997. 4. The said miscellaneous case was opposed by the husband and on contested he...
J.C.T. Limited and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR143(Cal)
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. Dr. Pal, appearing for the assessee, moves for Rule and interim order in respect of a notice dated December 24, 1998, issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Revision) under Section 265 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to revise the assessee writ petitioner's assessment in regard to the assessment year 1994-95.2. Mr. Agarwal, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the writ application is against a mere notice and thus the writ application should not be entertained and it should be dismissed. He has submitted that it is not a case of granting or refusing an interim order, but a case deserving dismissal in limine.3. The arguments of the parties, therefore, have to be considered in some detail.4. Dr. Pal placed the impugned notice (page 69 of the writ petition) and drew my attention to the terms of Section 263. That section need not be set out, as it is easily available. He submitted that the power to revise is based upon two conditions precedent and t...
Rajendra Kumar Malhotra and ors. Vs. Harbanslal Malhotra and Sons Ltd. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT13(HC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. M/s. Harbanslal Malhotra & Sons Ltd. (referred to as the Company) carries on business Inter alia as manufacturer and dealer in safety razor blades, razor blades, safety razors, electrical shavers, and cosmetics. The share holding of the company is divided equally between the appellant No. 1 and his group, the respondent No. 2 and his group and the respondent No. 3 and his group. The appellant No. 1, the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 3 are brothers,2. On 30th September, 1992 the appellants filed an application under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. 1956 (referred to as the Act) against the respondents alleging that the respondents had totally excluded the appellant from the management of the company and were keeping the appellant in the dark about the management and business affairs of the company. It is not necessary to go into all the particulars pleaded in support of this case for the purpose of this appeal. The relevant allegation in the petition m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »