Kolkata Court June 2000 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.
Cyrill D' Souza Vs. Vijay Bank and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT279(HC),2000(2)CHN601
The Court 1. While posted as Branch Manager at the Somajlguda Branch of the Vijaya Bank at Hyderabad, the writ petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that the Central Bureau of investigation ('CBI' in short) had started a criminal case against him under sections 120B/420 indian Penal Code read with sections 13(2) and 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The suspension was subsequently revoked on 30th October, 1990, although the CBI continued with the criminal case. After revocation of the order of suspension, the writ petitioner was transferred to and posted to Calcutta at the Bank's Netajl Subhas Road Branch, while the criminal case was pending before the Principal Special Judge at Hyderabad.2. While working as Scale-II Officer tn the aforesaid Branch at Calcutta, the writ petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 22nd April, 1993, informing him that an enquiry was proposed to be held against him under Regulation 6 of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employee...
Abn Amro Bank Vs. Saswata Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas328(Cal)
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 4, 2000, passed by the learned judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, whereby in the course of an application filed before him under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, he issued an ad interim injunction restraining the appellant herein from disposing of the vehicle in question till the next date.2. The only ground urged before us today by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant while assailing the impugned order is that the learned court below had no jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order because there did not exist any arbitration agreement between the parties and in the absence of any arbitration agreement between the parties, the application under Section 9 of the Act was not maintainable and therefore the court below should not have taken cognizance of any such application, nor should it have passed an order of the aforesaid nature.3. We have been taken through the application filed b...
Smt. Dolly Saha Vs. the Cesc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT284(HC)
B. Bhattacharya, J. 1. These two writ applications were heard analogously as common questions of law and fact are involved herein.2. One Dolly Saha is the petitioner in W.P. No. 3730(W) of 2000 while Sm. Laxmi Rani Saha, her mother-in-law is the petitioner in the other writ application viz. W.P. No.4934(W) of 2000.3. The grievance of Dolly against CESC is that although no amount is due and payable for the consumption of electricity through the 440 volt meter standing in her name, the CESC authority is demanding additional amount alleged to be due for the consumption of electricity through the meter which stood in the name of Basanta Saha, since deceased, her father-in-law although the said meter was disconnected in the year 1990 and thereafter she obtained a new meter in her own name.4. Laxmi Rani Saha, the petitioner of the other writ application has come forward with the allegation of illegal disconnection of her 220 volt domestic connection for non-payment of 1/10th of the amount du...
Kothari Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Doshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas272(Cal)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 24, 1998, passed by the learned single judge of this court in a winding up application wherein after admitting the winding up petition, the learned single judge directed the appellant-company to pay to the respondent petitioning creditor Rs. 2, 15,999 by way of the principal amount, interest assessed thereon and the costs of the winding up application.2. The aforesaid direction for payment of the aforesaid amount was passed by the learned single judge on the basis of a reasoning contained in the judgment under appeal to the effect that the appellant in the affidavit-in-opposition filed to the winding up application before the learned single judge had not disputed the execution of the two promissory notes for Rs. 1,00,000 each which formed the basis of the winding up application filed by the respondent petitioning creditor in the trial court.3. To properly appreciate the aforesaid context, we will reproduce herein-below the port...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›