Kolkata Court March 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.
Ajit Kumar Chakraborty and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT492(HC),1999CriLJ4636
P. C. Chose, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner Inter alia for the following prayers:--(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents concerned particularly respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 to recall rescind and/or set aside the Impugned complaint dated 12th January, 1999 being annexure 'F' hereto forthwith and further direcltng each of them to porceed in accordance with law; (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the respondents concerned particularly the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from giving any effect of the said complaint against the petitioners forthwith; (c) A writ and/or in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondents to certify and produce all relevant records relating to the case so that on perusal thereof consclonable justice may be rendered by quashing the impugned complaint dated 12th January, 1999 being annexure 'F' hereto; (d) An order of injunction restraining the respondents from giving any effect to and/or fu...
Madhu Ghosh Vs. M/S. K.K. Company and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT204(HC)
S.N. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This writ appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.99 passed by the single Judge of this court in writ'petition No. 16505(W) 1995 whereby the order dated 27th August, 1998 issued by the respondent No. 3 renewing a lease for grant of ferry service in favour of the respondent No. 7 was set aside.2. In a public auction held in August, 1995 for grant of lease in respect of Chandernagore Rantghat to Jugaddal Ghat ferry service the respondent No. 7 being the highest bidder was granted such lease for a period of three years from September 1, 1995 to August 31, 1998 by the respondent No. 1 to 3 and an agreement of lease was also executed and registered between Chandernagore Municipal Corporation (respondent No.l) and the respondent No. 7. The deed granted liberty to the lessee to apply for renewal of the lease after its expiry on terms and conditions incorporation in Clauses 31 to 33 of the deed. In terms of clause 31 of the said agreement, th...
Secretary, Indian Tea Association Vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ166Cal
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated July 24, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Joint Secretary, Legal, of Indian Tea Association. According to the petitioner the duties to be performed by the Assistant Secretary in which post he as appointed would appear from the advertisement which is to the following effect:'Duties would include minuting of meetings; formulating advice on important judicial decisions and legislative enactments; preparing memoranda/ representations.'3. The petitioner, therefore, contended that he having no power to issue any direction or exercise supervisory power or not having control over the other workmen of the appellant herein, he was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, owing to an...
Shyamapada Bera and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT392(HC)
B.M. Mltra. J.1. In this writ petition, a prayer is made for issuance of a Writ, of Mandamus seeking direction upon the respondents to set aside the impugned order of vesting being Order No.8 dated 21st December, 1995 in respect of the petitioners' properties describing in paragraph 17 of the writ petition passed in Sao Mota 7AA Case No.3 of 1995. The writ petitioners have made out their case in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, where It has been specifically averred that out of the Schedule 'A' property, the Revenue Officer vested the properties of the petitioners which have been delineated therein. It appears from the reading of the Impugned order that the big raiyat, Atlndra Narayan Malty, is absent though he received notice of this case by registered post with A/D. The retained land of the Schedule measuring area of 22.49 acres of land where reference about the vesting land measuring about 16.94 acres of land. It has been ordered that the said 16.94 acres of land covered by Schedu...
Rdb Two Thousand Plus Ltd. Vs. Sarvideo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Cal107
ORDERAmitava Lala, J. 1. This is an application for dismissal of the suit and in the alternative rejection of the Plaint.2. The application is made mainly on two grounds, First is that revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent since no cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Second is that plaint does not disclose any cause of action.3. In support of the application Mr. Girish Gupta, learned Counsel contended that he is eager to raise the second point first.4. He stated that the plaintiff made untrue and incorrect statements to form a part of the cause of action within the jurisdiction. It was further alleged that the plaintiff has made an untrue statement by saying that agreement dated 16th September, 1996 was entered in between the parties and confirmed at the registered office of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction.5. Prima facie, I am of the view that petition is made in a very criptic manner to understand the basis of the submission...
Baid (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC65,1999(111)ELT346(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. The writ petitioner moves against a Customs adjudication order whereby balance of duty equivalent (Rs. 3 lac. and odd), imposed penalty of Rs. 20 lac. and interest on unpaid money equivalent of duty have fallen due.2. The writ petitioner's departmental appeal to the Tribunal was delayed by 9 months and the Tribunal opined that the excuse that only one Director had fallen ill was too hollow to merit condonation.3. Shri Mullick appearing for the Writ petitioner submits that the penalty imposed is too large and is an abuse of the discretion and power allowing such levy to be made reasonably and in accordance with law.4. Regarding the balance duty payable Shri Mullick submits that this amount is payable but the court should consider that Rs. 3 lac and odd is a small balance outstanding when the original claim was above Rs. 70 lac; according to Shri Mullick, that the writ petitioner has cleared much the larger part of the duty amount should also go in favour of the ...
Pratap Narayan Das Vs. Sailendra Kumar Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)1CALLT355(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J. 1. In this appeal filed by the tenant/defendant against the Judgment dated 30th April. 1985 passed by the learned 3rd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, the appellant challenges the decree of eviction in respect of the property in question on two grounds namely, that the service of notice as required under section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956 was not proved and that the plaintiff/respondent also failed to discharge the onus regarding the proof of the fact of reasonable requirement of the house.2. The premises at No. 6/A, Waverly Lane, Calcutta on the ground floor was let out by the respondent to the appellant. The respondent lives on the 1st floor of the same building. The appellant and the respondent both, on the ground floor and 1st floor respectively, have two rooms each; whereas the appellant on the ground floor had, in addition to these two rooms, a kitchen, bath and privy, the respondent does not have any kitchen on the 1st floor, but has a b...
Rnt Plantations Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(108)ELT26(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J. 1. The writ petition is against three show cause notices. The period for which Duty is claimed is 2-6-1998 to 3-6-1998. The petitioners contend that as per Tariff Item 0902.10 (page 21) tea in unit containers but not bearing any brand name would not attract Excise Duty.2. It is alleged inter alia in paragraphs 6 and 26 that tea was cleared in bulk from the estates bearing no brand names but, names of Tea Estates.3. It is submitted that on this basis the show cause cannot issue as Duty is not attracted.4. Mr. Roychoudhury submits that whether tea was cleared under a brand name or not is a question of fact. Therefore the department must adjudicate first.5. It appears to me that whether the Tea Estate's name is a brand name within the meaning of Clause 5 of Chapter 9 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is primarily a question of law.6. The writ application is therefore not an abuse of the process of law seeking to stifle the show cause unjustly.7. Rule as prayed ...
Gis Ltd. Vs. Indiana Conveyors Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT78(HC)
The Court1. These are two applications under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by one of the contracting parties to a contract agreement The petitioner has asked for the following reliefs from the court :'(a) Injunction restraining the respondent company. Its agents servants and assigns from Invoking the said Bank Guarantee No. G16/67 dated 17th December 1997 for Rs. 26,00,000/-Issued by the Bank of India in favour of Indiana Conveyors Pvt. Ltd., at the Instance of your petitioner;(b) Injunction restraining the respondent company, its servants, agents and assigns from receiving any payment from the Bank of India against the said Bank Guarantee No. G 16/67 dated 17th December, 1997; for Rs. 26,00,000/-;(c) Injunction restraining the respondent company, its agents, servantsand assigns to receive any payment from Reliance Petroleum Ltd.,and/or its project partners FMC--a U.S. based Multi-nationalwithout leaving a sum of Rs. 79,61,162.52 p. on account of yourpet...
Shiva Carriers Vs. Royal Projects Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Cal138
ORDERK.J. Sengupta, J.1. This application has been taken out without mentioning any section of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 but claiming following reliefs.'(a) Declaration that the petitioner is the sole and absolute owner of the said two vehicles bearing police registration AS-25-0 130 and AS 25-0160 Engine Nos. 697 D23K937 17343 and 697D23K937 17327 Chasis Nos. 360 324K93702498 and 360324K93702476 respectively.(b) Declaration that all payments payable by the petitioner under the Agreement dated November 28, 1993 have been paid and that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any amount or further amounts from the petitioner.(c) Declaration that the purported reference before the respondent No. 3 is null and void and of no effect.(d) Declaration that the respondent No. 3 is not the Arbitrator and not appointed as the Arbitrator by the petitioner and has no mandate.(e) Alternatively a fit and independent person be appointed as the arbitrator in place and stead of the responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »