Kolkata Court May 2000 Judgments

Manohar Rajaram Chhabaria Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)3CALLT434(HC),[2002]110CompCas162(Cal)

M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. These five appeals are all directed against the judgment and order of the Company Law Board dated 27th July, 1998 and have, therefore, being heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeals are that; proceedings were instituted by the Employees' Federation i.e. employees-shareholders under sections 235. 237, 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Law Board; the Central Government also supported the said petition by filing an affidavit; in the said affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government, reference was also made to the Company Petition No. 46 of 1996 filed by Central Government before the Company Law Board under section 408 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Central Government had earlier conducted an inspection under section 209A and this report allegedly brought out certain financial mismanagement in the affairs of the M/s. Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd.3. Th...

Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Asiat ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)3CALLT499(HC)

V.K. Gupta, J.1. By this common Judgment we propose to dispose of three Appeals together namely Appeal Nos. 554, 555 and 556 of 1993. On 14th July 1993 the learned single Judge of this Court while considering the application filed by the plaintiff/respondents for grant of an order ofinjunction allowed the said application and confirmed the earlier ad-inierim order as absolute.2. Mr. S.B. Mookherjee, learned senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant Bihar States Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (BS1DC for short) in Appeal No. 554 of 1993 has confined his challenge to the Judgment under Appeal on the limited question of jurisdiction of this Court and therefore has urged that the leave granted by the learned trial Judge in terms of Clause 12 of the Letters Patentwas erroneously and mlsappropriately granted and that this leave should have been revoked. But the learned trial Judge instead of revoking the leave, curserily dealt with the question of Jurisdiction by observing as under...

Sisir Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001(88)FLR133],(2000)IILLJ1618Cal

Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition arises out of an order dated April 17, 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. Nos. 1477 of 1995 and 1473 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners herein for their absorption was dismissed.2. The petitioners admittedly were appointed as T.C. Volunteers on ad hoc basis for assisting ticket checking staff on a remuneration of Rs. 3/- per day. They filed application for regularisation after they had allegedly put in 10 years service. Such appointments were made in terms of purported Railway Board Circular No. E(NG)111-77/RCI/80 dated April 21, 1982. Services of such ad hoc employees having been terminated, they filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was marked as Original Application No. 214 of 1986 and Original Application No. 215 of 1986, prior thereto another application being Original Application No. 10 of 1986 was filed wherein it had been direc...

Radhe Shyam Ruia and ors. Vs. Smt. Tara Devi Jalan

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT9(HC)

Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.2.97 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Suit No. 180 of 1992 whereby and where-under the suit of the plaintiff for 'Khas' possession was decreed with mesne profit calculated @ Rs. 3 per sq. ft. from 4th March, 1992 till the defendant remains in occupation. The defendant is the appellant in the instant appeal.2. The suit was filed, Inter alia, for a decree for 'Khas' possession of the Premises No. 68/1B, Nimtala Ghat Street, Calcutta. The said reliefs were claimed, Inter alia, on the ground that the defendant was a tenant of the premises in question under a registered Deed of Lease for a period of 21 years commencing on and from 1st January, 1970, which having come to an end by efflux of time on 31st December, 1990. The Plaintiff became entitled to Khas possession, as the lease being for more than 20 years, the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 had no application in r...

Dukhishyam Benupani Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2000CriLJ4086

ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J.1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 9-10-96 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Calcutta in complaint case No. C/298 of 95. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this application may be summarised as follows :-According to the petitioner, the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 M. P. Agarwala and Umethmal Dugar contravened the provisions of Cl. (b & d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 during the financial year, 1993 and thereby allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 56 of the said Act. Accordingly, the petitioner being competent officer of the Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange Regulations Act filed a complaint in 1995 before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and the complaint was numbered as C-298/95. In the body of that complaint names of 8 prosecution...

Daynand Prosad Sinha and Co. Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Lt ...

Court: Kolkata

ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. By making this application, the petitioner wanted intervention of this Court to get an appointment of the Arbitrator.3. According to the petitioner, a letter was written by the petitioner to the respondent on 20th August, 1998 being Annexure 'C' to the petition asking the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator within 30 days failing which the appropriate jurisdiction of the Competent Court of law will be invoked.4. Now, the question arose before this Court, which should be Competent-Court of law?5. The respondent company has its office at 1, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta - 700 071, within the jurisdiction of this Court. No leave under Clause 12 of the letters patentwas sought for by the petitioner possibly on the basis of the fact that the sole respondent carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, cause title does not say as to whether the respondent is...

Bhailal Shaw Vs. Gobindaram Nagar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)1CALLT95(HC)

G.C. De, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the Order No.97 dated 28.2.84 passed by Shri G. Banerjee, Subordinate Judge, second Court, Allpore in Misc. Case Nos.4 and 5 of 1982 tried analogously. 2. One Govindaram Nagar got a decree of Rs. 53,033.41 P. with interest in Suit No. 266 of 1977 in the Original Side of the High Court at Calcutta on 25.7.78 and the said decree was transferred to the second Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore with a certificate of non-satisfaction and the said decree was put into execution in that Court and Money Execution Case No. 2 of 1980 was started against the judgment-debtor, Kishan Lal Shaw @ S. K. Lal Shaw. 3. Similarly, one Shyamsundar Sen got a decree of Rs.52,707.05p. with interest in Suit No. 267 of 1977 in the Original Side of the High Court at Calcutta and the said decree was transferred to the second Court ofSubordinate Judge at Alipore with a certificate of non-satisfaction and Money Execution Case No.3 of 1980 was started when the ...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Draupadi Devi and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001ACJ1591,(2000)3CALLT369(HC),[2001(88)FLR290],(2000)IILLJ1337Cal

S.B. Sinha, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the insurer raises an interesting question of law.2. The applicants/respondents are the heirs and representatives of the Late Budheswar Jha. The said Budheswar Jha was 'Khalasi' of the Lorry bearing No. WBI - 7062. The said Lorry met with an accident allegedly owing to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver thereof.3. The said claim application filed by the applicants/respondents was considered on merit and keeping in view the fact that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 900/- p.m. only, the learned Tribunal below allowed the said application against the appellant herein on contest against the insurance Co. and ex-parte herein against the rest holding that they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,19,600/- as 'compensation',4. Mr. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. According to the learned counsel, the deceased having been appointe...

Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2000Cal283,[2001]103CompCas541(Cal)

Ashok Kumar Mathur, C. J.1. This is an appeal arising out of an order dated 14th March, 2000 passed by the Learned single Judge in W.P. No. 2924 of 1999 whereby the Learned single Judge held that there was no fraud or any reference to any special equity made therefore it has no jurisdiction to interfere in enforcement of the bank guarantee. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the learned single Judge the present appeal has been filed by the petitioner/appellant.2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the above appeal are that the appellant Burn Standard and Co. Ltd. challenged the notice of invocation of bank guarantee dated 19th November, 1999 issued by the respondent No. 1 in a letter dated 25/ 30th December, 1999 issued by the United Bank of India, the respondent No. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner is a sick industrial unit within the meaning of West Bengal Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1972...

Jaymac Lasetron (P.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Cal)366,[2000]245ITR734(Cal)

Amitava Lala, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, virtually, wanted withdrawal, recalling, cancellation, etc., of the orders passed by the authority dated February 13, 1996, August 3, 1999, September 7, 1999, anda communication dated November 9, 1999. In addition thereto further other order of refund collected by the appropriate respondents and not to give effect and/or further effect of the orders or communications as aforesaid. In all, the other prayers are incidental to the main relief as prayed for as above.2. Firstly, it is to be remembered that the instant application was taken out on April 6, 2000, long after the aforesaid happenings.3. According to the petitioner, on January 31, 1983, an agreement was entered into between Orient Beverages Ltd. (the lessor) and one Jaymac India (P.) Ltd., the original defaulter in the proceedings, in terms whereof the lessor let out such company 11th floor of premises No. 50, Chowring-hee Road, Calcutta, covering an area of 5,386 sq. ft....