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.
Smt. Menoka Rani Pal Vs. Smt. Maya Rani Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Cal182
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This second appeal is at the instance of a tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 26,1996 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 167 of 1986 thereby reversing those dated April 26,1986 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court, Serampore in Title Suit No. 89 of 1985. 2. The respondent herein, a transferee landlady, filed the aforesaid suit against the appellant on the grounds of default, causing nuisance and annoyance and on the ground of reasonable requirement. In the said suit, the respondent also pleaded that appellant had demolished the wall on the eastern side and had reconstructed the same thus violating Clause (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. Although the respondent was a transferee landlady, she filed the aforesaid suit within three years from the dateof acquiring title over the suit property. 3. The said s...
West Bengal Housing Board and ors. Vs. Papiya Bain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT71(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 10th March 1998 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 186/97 whereby and whereunder the learned trial Judge allowed the writ application in favour of the petitioner/first respondent.2. The writ petitioner/first respondent herein filed a writ application inter alia for following reliefs:--'(A) (i) To do and to discharge their statutory duties in accordance with law;(ii) To direct the respondents to give delivery of possession of the flat being 'E' type flat No. 8/9 at E.C-T.P. Phase-IV forthwith on acceptance of the balance of the consideration money which your , petitioner was and is ready and willing to pay;(iii) To direct the respondents authorities to dispose of the representation in accordance with law by handing over possession of the flat in question within a specified period;(B) A writ of Certiorari do issue, commanding the respondents to transmit the all the records relating to the prese...
Calcutta Tramways Co. (1978) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ramesh and 17 ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1173Cal
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a common judgment dated June 24, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in two writ applications filed by the respondents herein claiming, inter alia, issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein to absorb them in permanent service2. There were 15 petitions in C.O. No. 8686 (W) of 1992 and 13 petitioners in C.O. No. 9998 (W) of 1992. They filed writ applications, inter alia claiming that they although were working in a job which is perennial in nature, they were engaged for work for 89 days, whereafter their services used to be terminated for 15 to 20 days. The writ petitioners have contended that they had been working for 14 to 21 years with the appellant company. Such statements have been made in annexure 'A' to the writ application.3. The writ petitioners have themselves annexed to the writ applications various documents to show that they had been employed temporarily for a period of 89 da...
Apl (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC26,1999(111)ELT21(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. This is an application made by the owners of 35 containers of newsprints and the owners of the original feeding vessel.2. The shipowners, of the second petitioner, are registered in Singapore. The fed vessel flew a Singapore flag.3. The writ petitioners claimed that the manifest filed in regard to the fed vessel M.V. 'LIANSHA' be corrected as to the 35 containers by deleting 9 from those because, according to them, those containers had fallen over-board at Sandhead before the vessel reached the Customs station at Calcutta.4. The respondent No. 8 was at all material times the port agent at Calcutta of the said fed vessel.5. There was an earlier writ by the said 8th respondent. When the fed vessel was within the territorial waters of India, an order was obtained in that writ, for obtaining free passage of the said ship and an undertaking was given by the 8th respondent that the 9 containers, which had allegedly fallen overboard, would be salvaged by them.6. Until...
Naveet Kumar Didwania Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC28,1999(111)ELT24(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. The petitioner is enjoying an order passed in February, 1998 by the CEGAT which entitles it to unconditionally release of synthetic granules which are the subject matter of the present writ petition.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted on the basis of three cases [Narain Das, : [1960]40ITR618(SC) , Kamlakshi Finance, : 1991ECR486(SC) , Grasim Indutries, : 1996(82)ELT457(Mad) (Madras, Single J.)] the necessity of lower departmental authorities following the orders and dictates of those placed higher up in the department.3. According to the petitioner's case the CEGAT having passed the order of unconditional release the above principle of law takes this shape in this case, that the authorities should release the goods and give full effect to the CEGAT order.4. Mr. Roychowdhury, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the respondents' have filed an Appeal to the Supreme Court and that they are entitled to do so because this is a disputed valua...
Arora Matthey Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC845,1999(112)ELT11(Cal)
ORDERAjoy Nath Ray, J.1. The writ petition is directed against a show cause notice dated 9-3-1998 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta asking the writ petitioners to show cause why wilfully evaded Central Excise duty to the tune of Rs. 2.40 crores (approximately) should not be levied as against them.2. The only points which are impressive about the show cause notice are the amount of the demand and the manner in which Mr. Prem Gopal Mukherjee appearing for the respondents tried to support it. Mr. Mukherjee gave me several cases mostly of the Supreme Court which show that it is most certainly the ordinary rule that a show cause notice is not to be restrained from being proceeded with at the first and initial stage.3. Dr. Pal appearing for the writ petitioner, however, submitted that the show cause notice suffers from an obvious lack of jurisdiction and, therefore, the writ petition should succeed.4. The period of manufacture in question is from April, 1993 to March, 19...
Sanat Kumar Mal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT30(HC)
S.B. Sinha, J .The petitioners in this writ application, inter alia, have prayed for the following reliefs:--'(a) A Writ of Certlorari commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 7 to forthwith produce, certify and/or cause production of the records of the case No. 4 of 1962 of District Hooghly started against Munindra Nath Mal, father of the petitioners, under section 5A of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and Estates Acquisition Appeals Nos. 9 and 10 of 1974 of the court of the Special Judge under section 5A(6) of the said Act, being the District Judge, Hooghly and the papers and documents relating to the purported order of vesting passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 so that the same may be perused and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. (b) A Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents Nos. 1 to 7, their officers, servants and agents to cancel, revoke and/or rescind theorders impugned in the present petition and also the purported order of vesting passed by the Revenue Officer and n...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Saday Chand Mahatab and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT211(HC),1999(1)CHN553
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This case has been placed before this bench in view of the difference of opinion between two of the Hon'ble Judges of this court. The question succinctly put is as to whether the memorandum of agreement dated 7th February, 1979 entered into by the parties constitutes a lease or licence.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.The plaintiffs-respondents are the joint owners of a premises bearing No. 2 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta as described in the schedule appended to the plaint. The appellant Bank approached the plaintiffs with a proposal to purchase the said premises at a price of Rs. 81 lakhs. For the said purpose negotiations had been held between July '78 and February 79. The parties also discussed about observance and performance of variousformalities in this regard. However, as the plaintiffs had some difficulties in execution the deed of sale in favour of the defendant-appellant Immediately, as it appears from the minutes of discussion dated 6th Novem...
Pradip Kumar Majhi Vs. Aloke Kumar Majhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: (1999)2CALLT450(HC)
B. M. Mitra, J.1. The instant revisional application is directed against Order No. 24 dated 12.7.95 passed by the learned Munsif, Haldia at Tamluk in T.S. No. 246 of 1993. By the impugned order item Nos. 1 and 2 of the interrogatories of the petition dated 17.6.95 were allowed and the rest were disallowed as not relevant for the purpose of interrogatories. The revisionist petitioner is aggrieved by the portion of the order by which the interrogatories were disallowed. Mr. Bagchi, the learned Advocate appearing onbehalf of the revisionist petitioners, has assailed the order firstly on the ground that, according to him, the order is of a non-speaking nature and according to him on that score the order is liable to be set aside. it appears that in the impugned order the learned Munsif has referred to the question of relevancy of interrogatory and on that consideration he has allowed certain interrogatories and he has disallowed some others. The very vital interrogatories which were disall...
Smt. Smriti Jaiswal and anr. Vs. Romi Jaiswal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Cal123
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the error of the learned trialJudge dated 30th November, 1998 on an application of the appellants/defendants Nos. 2 and 3 inter alia, praying for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of Letters Patent and for dismissal of the suit. By the said order, the learned single Judge dismissed the application of the appellants/defendants Nos. 2 and 3.2. For the sake of convenience, reference to the notice in this judgment shall be made as they have been arrayed in the suit being C.S. No. 393 of 1997. The plaintiff is respondent No. 1 in the instant appeal and the defendant No. 1 is respondent No. 2 herein. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the appellants in the instant appeal.3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint, briefly stated, is that in or about 1979 Krishna Lal Jaiswal (since deceased) began carrying on business in partnership with his two sons, being plaintiff and one Aswini Kumar Jaiswal under the name and style ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »