Kolkata Court July 2001 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.
Jagannath Dhara Vs. Bankim Chandra Dhara
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT325(HC)
P.K. Samanta, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the parties.This revjsional application is directed against an order dated 16.1.2001 passed in Title Appeal No. 123 of 1992 thereby allowing the application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act filed by the defendant/opposite parly No. 1.2. Evidently, the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was decreed ex parte in preliminary form. The said opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the said ex parte decree. The said application which was registered as J. Misc. Case No. 56 of 1987, was again dismissed on the failure of the said opposite party to take steps. Another application under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC was filed for restoration of the aforesaid J. Misc. Case No. 56 of 1987 along with an application for condonation of delay. Though the said Misc. Case was registered upon condonation of delay but the same was dismissed on contest on the merits of the same....
Ahamed HossaIn Sk. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT335(HC),2001(2)CHN762
M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. The facts in brief as can be gleaned from the order of the learned single Judge, are as under.2. Pursuant to a notice dated November 5, 1096, petitioner applied for appointment as modified ration dealer (M.R. Dealer). Concerned Inspector (F & S) appears to have held spot enquiry with respect to the candidates including the petitioner and submitted the report before the Sub Divisional Controller. The Area Chief Inspector considered the report and expressed his opinion thereon. The Sub Divisional Controller then furnished the applications, annexure thereto, report of inspection, the opinion of Area Chief Inspector as well as his personal opinion to the Karmadakshya, Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Stayee Samity of Chapra Panchayet Samlly. Though the said papers were placed before the said Samity in June, 1998, but no decision was taken thereon and, therefore, the writ application being W.P. No. 17346(W) of 1998 was filed.3. The learned Judge was of the following opinion;'In the n...
Sadhan Mukherjee Vs. Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR259],(2002)ILLJ121Cal
D.K. Seth, J. 1. A tender was floated inviting contracts for the performance of certain jobs including repair and maintenance of boiler. The tender contained a Clause 6(1)(f), whereby it is stipulated that the successful tenderer has to employ 51 numbers of workmen being annexured heads to be provided by the company who are presently deployed forboiler repairs shall be deployed for the job under the proposed contract. The petitioners are 63 such contractors' labour other than those 51 annexured heads working under the present contract who seek to represent 119 similarly such contract labour being engaged by the present contractor each of whom is holding gate-pass.2. In this writ petition the petitioners claim that the said condition contained in paragraph 6(1)(f) should be modified to include the scheme for protection of the said 63 petitioners as well as 119 other contract labour represented by them and the respondents should be directed to modify the said clause in the tender so as t...
Sumitra Das Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2001
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ962Cal
ORDERAshim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The post-death benefits of a deceased employee of United Bank of India was denied to the writ petitioner who claims to be the widow of the deceased. It appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Bank that the deceased employee had already nominated his nephew in respect of Provident Fund and Gratuity. 2. Hence, following the Rules of Nomination, the Bank is obliged to pay the said sum to the nominee of the respective funds being the Provident Fund and Gratuity. With regard to family pension the Bank denied such pension to the widow on the ground that a Probate Case is pending in the Civil Court. 3. Mr. M. Rahaman, learned advocate, appearing for the writ petitioner has relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in Smt. Violet Isaac and Ors. v. Union of India : (1991)IILLJ409SC . 4. Following the decision, Mr. Rahaman, learned advocate, submitted that family pension cannot be withheld on the plea of pendency of civil dispute. 5. I find substan...
Zullu Rahaman Alias Sk Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT42(HC)
P.K. Biswas, J. 1. Through this appeal, the appellant Zullu Rahaman alias Seikh challenges the judgment and order dated December 17, 1981, Passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Murshidabad in Sessions Serial No. 160 of 1987 (Sessions trial No. 1 of February, 1990) whereby convict/appellant has been convicted under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to a pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer RI for a further period of three months. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as mainly emerged from the recital contained in the FIR lodge by Emajuddin Sk., is as under :-That on 2 1.9.84 at about 1.30 p.m. the Informant Emajuddin came home after attending 'Jumma Namaj' then he heard some hue and cry from a place and on hearing such hue and cry. he rushed towards that place i.e., near the house of Hamed Sk., of Rampur. After reaching that place, Emajuddin Sk. found that his brother Naimuddin was lying there being critically injured. A...
Swapan Sinha Vs. Usha Rani Sahana
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT166(HC)
P.K. Ray, J.1. This Revislonal Application has been filed by defendant No. 2 of Title suit No. 268 of 1988, challenging the order dated 15th January, 1991 passed by learned Court of the 6th Munsif at Howrah whereby the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint and the prayer portion was allowed. Suit was filed by the plaintiff praying decree of declaration of passage as discribed in the schedule, decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants. Temporary injunction against the defendants restraining from disposing or transferring to the suit poverty to private passage to 3rd party also was prayed. For adjudication of the matter, it is necessary to consider the plaint also. In the plaint, in paragraph 17, plaintiff has submitted the following:'That the facts and circumstances of the case plaintiff is entitled to a decreed declaring that the plaintiff has a right, title and Interest and to a decree of declar...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sarat Chandra Shaw and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: (2001)3CALLT303(HC)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. This is an Appeal directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge dated 10th March, 1997 whereby the Jeamed single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed petitioners to be absorbed and if the vacancy is not available then the respondents shall create supernumerary posts and appoint the petitioners. It was also directed that, without absorbing and appointing the petitioners, respondents shall not appoint any un-skilled or semi-skilled person. It was also directed that if there is any vacancy in the semi-skilled person is available then to absorb the petitioners against vacancies temporarily and train them. It was directed that the respondents are restrained from appointing any un-skilled or Semi-skilled worker in the Durgapur Steel Plant until the petitioners are absorbed. It was further directed that absorption by the appointing authority shall be completed within 30th April, 1997. The upper age limit was also directed to be relaxed. Aggrieved agai...
Kulsoma Bibi and ors. Vs. Abdul Mannan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Cal1
Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. This appeal from the appellate decree is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by Sri S. K. Mukherjee, Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Burdwan on 30th November, 1979, by which he set aside the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit declaring plaintiff/respondents title to 'Ga' Schedule property of the plaint.2. Being aggrieved by such decision, the appellant preferred the appeal. It is to be indicated here that the present Second Appeal was admitted by this Court without recording whether this Court was satisfied that the case involved a substantial question of law or not. Be that as it may, the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be described as follows :--The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed the suit for declaration of his title to the land described in the Schedule 'Ga' of the plaint (hereinafter be referred as the suit land) and for perman...
Maxlux Glass Private Limited Vs. Icici Limited Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: (2001)2CALLT539(HC)
A.K. Mathur, C.J.1. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that a winding up petition under sections 433. 434 and 439 of the Companies Act. 1956 was filed by ICICI Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as ICICI) for winding up of M/S Maxlux Glass Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company). The Company was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 as a private Company limited by shares. The authorised share capital of the Company is Rs. 100, 100,000.00 divided into 10,000.000 share of Rs. 10/- each. The issued and subscribed capital of the Company is Rs. 70,130,360.00 made up of equity shares of Rs. 10/- each fully paid up. The Company carries on business of manufacturing of different kind of glass article. The Company was indebted to the petitioner in the sum of Rs.4,75,03.044/- as on 15th August. 1999 on account of money lent and advanced by the petitioner and not repaid by the Company. The petitioner claimed interest...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Borbheta Estate Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR379(Cal)
1. On an application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question, set out at page 2 of the paper book for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not empowered under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to direct the Assessing Officer not to allow Rs. 5,00,000 under Section 35CCA of the Act and in that view cancelling the order made under Section 263 of the Act ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1985-86. During the course of assessment the Income-tax Officer noticed that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on April 23, 1986, to the Society for Integral Development, No. 2, Church Lane, Calcutta. The said society issued a certificate to the asses-see dated June 30, 1984, certifying that the programme on rural development, in respect of which the assessee made the contribution, has been approved by the pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »