Kolkata Court January 2001 Judgments

Ganapati Exports Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001CriLJ3777

ORDERDebiprasad Sengupta, J. 1. This is an application for quashing of a proceeding being case No. C/ 898/93 under Section 57 against the accused-petitioner No. 1 and Section 57 read with Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act against the accused-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.2. On 21-5-1986 the Special Director Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Government of India issued a memorandum being No. T-4/ l-C/86 (SCN II) calling upon the accused-petitioners to show cause as to why adjudication proceeding as contemplated in the said Act should not be initiated for violation of the provision of Section 9(1)(C) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioners submitted reply to the show cause and after hearing the parties the adjudicating authority passed an order on 27-11-90 vide order No. SDE/R-II/19-20/90 dated 27-11-90 passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, F.E.R.A., Govt. of India, New Delhi. the adjudicating authority imposed a p...

Ganapati Exports Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2001(75)ECC748,2001(129)ELT571(Cal)

ORDERDebi Prasad Sengupta, J.1. This is an application for quashing of a proceeding being Case No. C/898/93 under Section 57 against the accused petitioner No. 1 and Section 57 read with Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act against the accused petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.2. On 21-5-1986 the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, Government of India issued a memorandum being No. T-4/1-C/86 (SCNII) calling upon the accused petitioners to show cause as to why adjudication proceeding as contemplated in the said Act should not be initiated for violation of the provision of Section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioners submitted reply to the show cause and after hearing the parties the adjudicating authority passed an order on 27-11-1990 vide Order No. SDE/R-II/19-20/90, dated 27-11-1990 passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, F.E.R.A., Govt. of India, New Delhi. The adjudicating authority imposed ...

Sushanta Kumar Nandy Vs. Prasanta Kumar Nandy

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT307(HC)

ORDER1. In the present case probate is pending. The same is contentious one. because the respective parties are replying on two Wills, one dated 18th December, 1985 and the other is 1st October, 1993. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant from the relevant portion of the two Wills quoted in paragraph 5 relating to premises No. 18. Park Lane, Calcutta-16 that the contents of the two Wills are almost similar though there might be minor discrepancy in the text thereof. Having regard to the expressions used in the two Wills with regard to the disposition of 18, Park Lane, Calcutta it appears that they are almost similar excepting minor discrepancy with regard to allotment of two flats to the other two brothers of the applicant. In one case the allotment was free of cost consisting of 1500 square feet each while in the other it was on payment of consideration for 1000 sq. ft. each. The learned counsel for the applicant therefore, relying upon section 247 of the Indian S...

ioc Yarn Agency Vs. Samsons Processing Industries

Court: Kolkata

Amitava Lala, J.1. The Court: This is a suit for price of goods sold and delivered. So far as the principal sum is concerned, there is no dispute. The dispute in the suit is in respect of rate of interest. This question was thoroughly considered on the earlier occasion and defendant was directed to pay the principal sum of Rs. 3,67,740/- to the plaintiff by an order dated 3rd March, 1999. Such order was duly complied with. The following issues are framed hereunder:'(1) Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it is framed?(2) Whether there is delay in payment and if so, whether the defendant is entitled for interest and what should be the rate of such interest in respect of paid and/or unpaid bills?(3) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?'2. This Court has gone through the plaint, written statement, documents disclosed hereunder specially exhibited. Therefore, the documentary and oral examinations were considered and arguments which were put ...

Santosh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2001]105CompCas976(Cal)

Amitava Lala, J.1. This is a suit for : (a) a decree for a declaration that the lien purported to be created and orally claimed by the defendant-bank on the fixed deposits mentioned in the schedule being annexure A hereto is void, inoperative, non est and is not binding on the holders of the fixed deposits and the defendant-bank is obliged to repay the said fixed deposits with interest thereon to the plaintiff ;(b) a decree for Rs. 79,49,080 as pleaded in paragraph 20 hereto ;(c) interim interest and interest on judgment at 21 per cent, per annum ;(d) a decree for damages for defamation amounting to Rs. 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakhs) ;(e) injunction ;(f) attachment ;(g) receiver ;(h) costs ;(i) further and other reliefs.2. Defendant No. 2 is the proforma defendant and the actual contesting defendant is defendant No. 1-bank. Such bank, as described by the plaintiff, has its regional office at 107/1, Park Street, Calcutta-700 016, within the jurisdiction of this court. No leave under Claus...

Prabir Kumar Dutta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT54(HC)

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet appearing at Page 31 of the writ petition.2. The relevant paragraph of the said charge-sheet is quoted below as well as the order of suspension served by the respondents. 'Statement of Charge. Discreditable conduct and indulgence in corrupt practice, in that Constable-8873, P.K. Dutta of RPY-Post/SRC(E), found demanding a copy from a passenger, Sri R.C. Choraria of 5/1, Motilal Mallick Lane, Calcutta-35, of 2652 UP. at H.H Station on P. No. 13, at about 22-40 Mrs. of 29-3-91, on the present of allowing him to carry un-backed luggage, as reported by Dr. S.C. Sahu, D.S.C/RPF/HRH Divn./E. Rly.'3. The principal ground of challenge are briefly as follows:Under Rule 135 Second Proviso the delinquent will have to be served with the charge-sheet within 30 days from the date of suspension wherein in the instant case the charge-sheet was submitted beyond 30 days and hence the order of suspension is liable to be revoked on the ...

Sristidhar Biswas and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT22(HC)

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. 55 writ petitioners came before this Court being prompted by the order of the Division Bench passed in appeal where similarly circumstanced candidates were given relief by this Court. 2. The principal grievance on which the writ petitioners prayed for redressal has been summarised in paragraph 41 of the writ petition which is quoted below:'An and by way of recording a notorious fact in the subject, your petitioners may mention that on 11.10.1980 was Saturday, the officials of the President, Ad-hoc Committee, prepared the appointment letters of 1965 candidates out of which only 600 trained candidates were included and after the preparation of the appointment letters, the President, Ad-hoc Committee, i.e. the appointing authority had put his signatures on the appointment letters, the same were distributed at the residence of those candidates from Sunday evening to Monday morning. The appointment letters had not even been posted and all the candidates got their ...

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribun ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1557Cal

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This writ application is at the instance of an employer and is directed against an award dated November 15, 1999 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta in Reference No. 6 of 1998. The following disputes were referred to the Tribunal: 'Whether the action of the management of the Farakka Barrage Project in not regularising 540 Muster Roll workers and thus denying them equal pay for equal work and other facilities, which regular workmen are enjoying is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?' 2. The Tribunal, by the award impugned herein, answered the disputes in favour of the employees thereby directing the management to regularise the services of the concerned workmen with effect from the date of granting them the grade and scale of pay in 1987. The management was further directed to grant all benefits available to the regular workers working in the same post in the establishment from the date of regularisation o...

Dr. Md. Ketab Ali Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2001)2CALLT293(HC),2001(2)CHN389

M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The facts in brief and to the extent relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ application are as under;The West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences (Respondent No. 2), for short W.B.U.A.F.S. was established in the year 1995 having been bifurcated from B.C.K.V. by West Bengal Act VI of 1995. The W.B.U.A.F.S.--the University is comprised of three faculties viz., (I) Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. (II) Faculty of Diary Technology and (III) Faculty of Fishery Sciences, An advertisement was made in leading newspapers by the University inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection in the teaching courses amongst others. Various teaching posts exists in the said three departments which were required to be filled up including that of the posts of Officers of the University. Amongst the teaching posts advertised in the various departments, applications were invited for the posts of Professors. Readers and Lecturers. For the po...

Madhusudan Konar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ870Cal

ORDERAshim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Writ petitioner challenged the order of Award of the Tribunal appearing at page 30 of the writ petition being annexure 'E' therein. It appears from the Award that the Judge of the 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur published a 'No Dispute Award' since the parties did not appear despite repeated notices having been served. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 'Award' means an interim or a final determination of any industrial dispute of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or NationalIndustrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award made under Section 10A . Accordingto the writ petitioner no dispute award is not an award within the definition of Section 2(b) of the said Act of 1947. In support of his contention, the learned advocate relied on two decisions of this Court. The first one is a Division Bench ...