Kolkata Court August 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.
Ram Ranjan Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Mining and Allied Machinery Corpn. L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT468(HC),[2001(89)FLR274],(2001)ILLJ1020Cal
D.P. Kundu, J. 1. The petitioners are retired employees of the Mining and Allied Machinery Corporation Ltd. (for short MAMC). The petitioners have common cause of action as they retired from the services of MAMC under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short VRS) Introduced by MAMC for its benefit. The case of the petitioners is that in spite of acceptance of their retirement under VRS their retirement benefit of gratuity have not yet been paid by MAMC.2. MAMC introduced VRS in 1989. The petitioners applied for voluntary retirement under VRS and the petitioners were thereafter, by respective orders, released from the services of MAMC under the said VRS with effect from the respective dates from the year 1993 as mentioned in the respective orders of retirement. The retirement of the writ petitioners under VRS took place during the period of 1993 to 1995. The following points arise for determination in the present case.1. Whether, in view of the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1...
Jagadish Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Cal269
ORDERD.K. Seth, J.1. A notice for expulsion of the petitioner was issued by the Co-operative Society, to which he had submitted a reply. The reply having been unsatisfactory, an enquiry was initiated in which the petitioner was expelled from the membership. Admittedly the petitioner was a worker-member. By reason of such expulsion from membership he was also deemed to have been removed from service and that was the intended purpose of the expulsion, as is contended on behalf of the respondent Co-operative Society. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 95 before the Arbitrator who had passed an award directing the petitioner to appeal against the expulsion order to the general body. An appeal has since been filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal challenging the award. In the absence of one of the members of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not functioning. At this stage the petitioner approaches this Court for appropriate orders with regard to the question of removal from serv...
Sujan Banerjee and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ377Cal
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. The writ petitioners are sixteen in number. Their case as made out in this application is that the respondent No. 6 initially appointed petitioner Nos. 1 to 15 as Data Entry Operators and petitioner No. 16 as Peon and deployed them as such in the International Air Cargo Complex (Import and Export Division) of Calcutta Customs at the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport ('NSCBI') on December 18, 1998 after execution of an agreement of sub-contract between the respondent No. 4 and the said respondent No. 6. However no appointment letter was issued in their favour by the said respondent No 6.2. Subsequently, the said sub-contract was terminated and a new sub-contract was given to respondent No. 5. After the creation of such new 'sub-contract, the respondent No. 5 assigned the same job to the petitioners with the difference that appointment letters were issued to the petitioners on April 26, 2000. Thereafter, the respondent No. 6 issued order of trans...
Mridul Kanti Majumder Vs. Smt. Jyotsna Bal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT285(HC)
T. Chatterjee, J.1. By consent of parties, this appeal is treated as on day's list and is taken up for hearing along with the application for stay.2. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 28th August. 1997 passed on an application filed by the respondents for recalling of an order passed by a learned Judge on 12th February, 1997. It is an admitted position that an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent filed at the instance of the appellant was disposed of by an order dated 24th February 1997 by transferring a probate suit being O.S. No. 10 of 1997 which was pending before a learned Judge at Alipore 24-Parganas (South) to this Court.3. After careful examination and on perusal of the order dated 24th February, 1997 passed by the learned trial Judge transferring the Probate suit to this Court in the exercise of the power under clause 13 of the Letters Patent, it appears to us that on that very date the application under clause 13 of the Letters Patent was disposed of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.P. Goal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: [2001]247ITR555(Cal)
Y.R. Meena, J. 1. On an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, this court has directed the Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and restoring the original assessment order ?'2. The questions referred at the instance of the assessee read as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the order dated August 29, 1984, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the principle of promissory estoppel was not applicable to the said order and as such the same was not binding on the Commissioner of Income-tax who subsequently passed order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act,...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J. P. Goel (Huf)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-2000
Reported in: [2000]113TAXMAN229(Cal)
Meena, J.On an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') this court has directed the Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court. Question referred at the instance of the revenue reads as Under:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trihunal was justified in law in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and restoring the original assessment order ?'2. The questions referred at the instance of the assessee reads as under:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the order dated 29-8-1994 passed by the learned Commissioner, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the principles of promissory estoppel was not applicable to the said order and as such the same was not binding on the Commissioner who sub-sequently passed order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Whet...
Rohit Agarwal Vs. Ami Film Distributor and Production and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2001)1CALLT10(HC)
1. The Court : This was an application made under sections 9 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which I shall refer in this judgment as the Act. The petitioner claimed and the Court granted leave to move this applications under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The prayer of the petitioner was for setting aside the award dated May 12, 2000 made by the joint arbitrators. There was an interim order made by Court and the award had been stayed till the disposal of the application. The parties had filed their affidavits in terms of directions of the Court.2. The facts of the matter in short were that in terms of an agreement dated September 26, 1998 the petitioner had been assigned by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who shall be referred as the respondents hereafter, the right of distribution, exploitation and exhibitation in 35 mm. shapes and sizes of the film 'PITA SARGA PITA DHARMA'. The petitioner alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs. 51,000.00 by a cheque dated Septe...
Giridharilal Soni Vs. Municipal Commission, Calcutta Municipal Corpora ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Cal12
ORDERDilip Kumar Seth, J. 1. The petitioner has applied for sanction of building plan in respect of a premises which was separated through mutation since been allowed by the Corporation. It is alleged that the portion owned by the petitioner is not a manufacturing unit whereas the other separated portion contains a manufacturing unit. The petitioner proposed to raise a building on his own separated portion which is not a manufacturing unit. The Corporation instead of refusing or granting sanction had required the petitioner to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Industrial Reconstruction Department. This direction by the Corporation for obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the Industries Department and the delay or default either in sanctioning or refusing the plan the petitioner has invoked writ Jurisdiction. 2. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, ld. Sr. Counsel had pointed out that as soon an application for sanction is made it is incumbent on the Corporation either to refuse or ...
J.W.O. B.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)3CALLT528(HC)
S.N. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This judgment disposes of all the three writ applications mentioned above. The writ petitioner, a Junior Warrant Officer, on being posted out from No. 2 Wing Air Force, Pune on 14.10.96 joined No. 4 Bengal/(Tech.) Air Squadron NCC, Jadavpur University Campus, Calcutta as a ground trainee instructor leaving his wife and child at Pune in a service marriage quarter (for short SMQ). At Jadavpur he took possession of one SMQ from JWO Chauhan who vacated the same and handed over the key of the quarter to the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, his allotment of quarter was acknowledged by the command-Ing Officer of his Unit by an endorsement on an application written by the petitioner to the school authority for admission of his child. Whether such acknowledgement by the Commanding Officer amounts to regularisation of allotment or not has been seriously disputed by the respondents, according to whom the possession was taken by the writ petitioner withou...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Kishan Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC186,(2001)1CALLT75(HC)
1. The appellant Insurance Company is aggrieved of the award dated 29.6.1991 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.J.C. Case No. 162 of 1987 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 48,000/- in favour of the respondent claimant and against the appellant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. We have heard Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. Despite calls and despite the case being listed, no one has appeared for the respondent claimant to oppose this appeal.2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that on 15.3.82 he was driving his car bearing registration No. WME 2937 and that an accident occurred with another car bearing registration No. WME 5897 and because of this accident the respondent No. 1 resolved certain injuries. He was admitted in the Calcutta Medical Research Institute from 15th March, 1982 for 13 days. His further case was that he was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident and his monthly income was more then Rs. 600...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »