Kolkata Court May 2001 Judgments
Naba Bihar Udyog and anr. Vs. Coal India Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT393(HC)
1. By this Writ Petition, Petitioners have, Inter alia, prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 22.9.2000 being annexure--C issued by the Chief General Manager. Marketing, Coal India Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the said CIL) rejecting petitioners' representation for change of allotment/linkage of Coal from Bharat Coaking Coal Ltd. (herein after referred to as the said BCCL) to the Collieries of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said ECL) and for a writ of mandamus commanding CIL authorities to change the linkage/allotment of Coal granted in favour of the petitioners from BCCL Collieries to ECL Collieries.2. Petitioner No. 1 Naba Bharat Udyog is a small scale Industrial unit and Petitioner No. 2 is a partner thereof. Petitioner No. 1 is a soft coke manufacturing unit /plant. Technology adopted in the said plant is the technology prescribed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. Respondent No. 1 being the said CIL is the apex coal company and...
Tag this Judgment!Shantiniketan Estate Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-21-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1231],(2002)ILLJ58Cal
Dilip Kumar Seth, J. 1. In a proceeding under Section 75(2-B) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the question of depositing 50 per cent of the amount was sought to be waived. But such waiver was not allowed and, however, injunction was granted. It is contended by the petitioner that in case this deposit is made, in that event it will not be able to recover the same. However, the petitioner contended that this law is not applicable in its establishment. According to the petitioner, today is the last date for depositing the said amount. Therefore, it has rushed to this Court for appropriate order. It is further contended that in the proviso to Sub-section (2-B) of Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, the authority has discretion to reduce the amount, but the authority has not exercised the discretion lawfully. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, contended that it is mandatory under Sub-section (2-B) of Section 75 of the said Act that 50 per cen...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Saha and Sons (Biri Merchants) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consulta ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-2001
Reported in: (2002)2CALLT104(HC),2001(2)CHN706
J. Banerjee, J. These are two appeals arising out of two suits, namely, T.S. 19/92 and T.S. 39/95, which suits were disposed of by the judgment dated 11th November, 1988 by Shri S.K. Prosad. Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 9th Court, Alipore in the District of South 24-parganas.2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances leading to the present appeals are as follows:-The plaintiff/company brought T.S No. 19/92 against the defendant/ company alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff was the owner of premisesNo. 28/8, Gariahat Road, previously within P.S. Tollygunge, now P.S. Lake within the District of South 24-Parganas and the defendant/company became a tenant in respect of a flat as described in Schedule-A of the plaint in the said premises. Initially the monthly rent of the said flat Including the rent of fixtures and fittings and rent for car parking space was Rs. 1,100/- only payable in advance by the 5th of the current month, for which rent becomes due and the said monthly rent a...
Tag this Judgment!Roushan Ali Alias Anwar Vs. Abdul Jalil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT280(HC)
A. Kabir, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12th September, 1990, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Alippre, 24 Parganas, dismissing the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction, being Title suit No. 8 of 1986, with a direction upon the defendant/respondent to refundto the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 46001/- along with statutory interest at the rate of 8% per annum, to be calculated from the date of acceptance of the amount till the date of payment by the defendant, within 60 days from the date of the judgment.2. The case as made out in the plaint is that the defendant as the owner of the suit premises entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 17th November, 1983, for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 1,01,000/-. The defendant received a sum of Rs. 5,001/- by way of earnest money on the same day and handed over the original Title Deed of the suit premises to the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Nicco Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-2001
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Cal)501,[2001]251ITR791(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order dated December 9/15, 1993, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I, Calcutta, being respondent No. 1, whereby and whereunder the revision application of the petitioner-assessee under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for allowing deduction of excise duty demanded for payment for manufacturing 'hot rolled rods' during the previous years relating to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76 has been rejected.2. The short facts of this case are that the petitioner at all material times was and is a manufacturer of amongst other 'hot rolled rods'. By Notification No. 74/70-CE, dated March 26, 1970, the Central excise authorities decided that the aforesaid product is excisable. So a show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner dated January 14, 1972, but the petitioner did not accept the contention and version of the excise authorities. The petitioner replied to the show cause whic...
Tag this Judgment!Trisakti Electronics and Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-2001
Reported in: 2001(78)ECC342,2001(133)ELT288(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. The case is unique one. The petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company. The petitioner No. 2 is a director and representative of such company. They are the merchant-exporters of eight diesel hydraulic truck mounted cranes (hereinafter called as the goods) to Bangladesh. The party respondents are basically (a) Central Excise Authorities; (b) Customs Authorities; (c) manufacturer; and (d) financiers of the goods. Financiers are not contesting the dispute. Therefore, there is existence of quadrangular dispute in between others which are inseparable in nature. A Division Bench of this Court is disposing an appeal from an interim order passed by a Single Bench of this Court also observed the same. Therefore, the dispute cannot be said to be dispute of a private nature which cannot be taken into account in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Public law element is involved herein.2. The short compass of the dispute is that the petitioners with the help of the financiers,...
Tag this Judgment!Javed Mondal Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT476(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for reliefs, inter alia, as under;'(A) Issue a writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men and agents and each of them to forthwith issue further permanent allotment order of the Quarter No. 1 Type-II Block A or any other eligible Type-II family quarter in 122 Bn. BSF at Tagorevilla, Alambazar, Calcutta-700 035 in favour to the petitioner and set aside and/or quash the letter dated 27.2.2001 being annexure 'F' hereto; (B) Issue a further writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men and agents and each of them to forthwith stop deduction of any sort of penal rent and/or Rs. 2110/- per month from the salary of the petitioner in respect to the said allotted quarter.' 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was transferred to Kashmir with 22nd Battalion and was seriously injured by Kashmir militants and he was admitted to the Army based hospital on 8.1. 1992. Thereafter, h...
Tag this Judgment!Allied Resins and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas502(Cal),2001(132)ELT557(Cal)
Sengupta, J.1. This application has been directed agianst the impugned notice of 8-3-2001, whereby the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Section, Customs House, Calcutta, has made demand of payment of Rs. 5,10,58,869 purported to be under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962. At the time of admission of the writ petition, upon hearing the learned counsel I decided to hear this writ petition on the limited point whether the petitioner having been declared sick is entitled to get any protection under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act') or not. My order dated 9-4-2001, speaks as follows :'In this matter I do not find any point to be dealt with by this Court excepting the point whether the demand notice can be proceeded with without the leave of the BIFR.'Against this order no appeal has been preferred by either of the parties, so it has reached its finality. It is settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment in S...
Tag this Judgment!Salim Makkar Vs. N.K. Pansari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Cal162
ORDERD.K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioner have filed C.S. No. 108 of 2001 as plaintiff against N.K. Pansari and others for certain reliefs. The plaint case inter alia, was that the plaintiff is the lessee of premises No.25, Black Burn Lane, Calcutta for a period of 99 years through a registered deed of lease dated 5th December, 1984 obtained from Miss. Lily Tweena and Mrs. Rosalind Jacob who were possessing the said premises adversely and as of right for more than 12 years. Having returned from Dubai on 9th February, 2001 he found construction being carried on in the said premises. On enquiry he came to learn that the defendant No. 1. N. K. Pansari had been making construction. In connection with the said suit an affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1 wherein the defendant No. 1 had disclosed the fact that such construction is being made on the basis of a plan sanctioned sometimes back since been revalidated in 1997. Since the relief with regard to the revalidati...
Tag this Judgment!Surindar Kaur (Rai) and ors. Vs. Jyoti Ranjan Banerjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT66(HC),2001(3)CHN444
B. Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application is at the instance of defendants in a suit of eviction and is directed against Order No. 32 dated August 17. 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ist Additional Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 151 of 1965 thereby allowing an application for amendment of plaint.2. The opposite party No. 1 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 151 of 1965 for eviction of the present petitioners on the ground of reasonable requirement. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge.3. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court below and the said Court by the judgment and decree dated February 7. 1968 affirmed those passed by the learned trial Judge.4. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred a second appeal before this Court which was however ultimately allowed by this Court on August 17, 1994 thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »