Kolkata Court July 2002 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.
Nilmoni Mazumdar Vs. Smt. Sanghamitra Mazumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Cal146,(2003)1CALLT400(HC),II(2003)DMC393
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The learned counsel for the appellant had made an application for stay of the judgment in an appeal arising out of an order passed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (HM Act). Subsection (2) of Section 28 of HM Act provides for an appeal to a Court to which the appeal lies from the Court having original jurisdiction. In thiscase, admittedly, appeal lies to the High Court. Section 21 of the HM Act prescribes application of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as far as possible. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that this appeal does not require any hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC, since it is a special right of appeal provided under the special statute. The right of appeal is available without any admission of the appeal. According to him, Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC cannot apply in respect of such an appeal.2. Mr. Jyotirmoy Bhattacharyya was along with Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee were requested to assist the Court on the question. The Court reco...
Rakesh Kumar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT441(HC)
A.K. Banerjee, J. 1. Both the writ petitioner applied for the post of sub-inspector (executive). However, writ petitioners became unsuccessful in getting the employment. According to them although the private respondent got lesser mark in the written test the appointment was given to the private respondents. Hence, this writ petition. 2. In the recruitment process there had been two stages of examination, written test for 200 marks and interview for 100 marks. Both the writ petitioners got higher marks that the private respondents. However, they failed in the interview having scored less than 40% marks and as such they were not given any employment. 3. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the rules provided for written test, physical efficiency test and interview. The rules were silent with regard to allotment of marks in respect of interview. However, the respondent authority relying on a circular issued by the Director General, Railway Protection Force dated 14th Ja...
Bidyut Dasgupta and ors. Vs. Sagar GramIn Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN376
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The first batch of the petitioners are the confirmed Scale-II officers of Sagar Gramin Bank whereas the second batch petitioners are enjoying promotional post of Scale - II officers subject to the result of an appeal pending between both the said groups.2. Sagar Gramin Bank is a rural bank set up in the district of North 24-Parganas. There are about 115 branches throughout the district. The said bank is having control of the United Bank of India as its sponsored bank. Initially there had been several anomalies with regard to the pay fixation of the bank employees. In terms of an order of the Apex Court, National Industrial Tribunal was set up by the Central Government for the said purpose. The said Tribunal published an award fixing the pay of the employees of the bank at par with the State Government Employees for a particular period and for the subsequent period thereafter at par with the employees of this sponsored banks. An equation committee had been set...
Ajit Kumar Roy Vs. Mrs. Maya Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT264(HC)
D.K. Seth, J.1. This Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 12th October, 1993 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 128 of 1985.1.1 The suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff on the ground of reasonable requirement for her own use and occupation. In the plaint, she had pointed out that she is the owner of the premises by virtue of a deed of gift executed by her father, since been duly accepted by her. That the defendant had recognized her father as the landlord and had also subsequently paid rent to her as well, She had made out a case that she needs the premises for her own use and occupation and that she is leaving in a rented house, which is not a suitably reasonable accommodation.1.2. The defendant, however, denied the title of the plaintiff on the ground that the deed of gift was executed by her father only for the purpose of seeking eviction of the defendant. She does not reasonably require the suit premis...
Pijush Banerjee Vs. Paromita Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4771,II(2003)DMC8
ORDERMalay Kumar Basu, J.1. This is an application Under Section 407 of the Cr. P.C. praying for transfer of the maintenance case being M.R. Case No. 790-M/1997 from the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Malda to any other Court in West Bengal.2. The petition has been filed by Pijush Banerjee, who is the opposite party in the aforementioned maintenance case which is pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Malda at this moment. Ground on which the petition is filed is that the petitioner husband went to Malda district to attend the said Court in connection with the hearing of the said matter on 11th November, 1997 when some unknown persons threatened him with dire consequences asking him to quit Malda immediately, otherwise he would have to face the consequences. It is further alleged that those people also assaulted the petitioner and on being so intimidated, the petitioner left Malda at once after informing the incident to his lawyer there. The petition has been contested and oppos...
Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. Birendra Nath Bhattacharjee and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2002
Reported in: [2003]117CompCas723(Cal),[2004]50SCL247(Cal)
Malay Kumar Basu, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated November 24, 1997 passed by, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1997 of that court under which he acquitted the accused appellant by reversing the judgment and order dated March 18 1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicting the accused under Section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be summarised as follows :M/s. Union of India Ltd., under which the respondent-accused, Birendra Nath Bhattacharjee, was employed as an officer brought a criminal case against the said respondent-accused before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South), Alipore, on the allegations that the respondent was provided with residential accommodation in the first floor-flat of premises No. 766/1 Block 'P', New Alipore, Calcutta, in respect of which the ...
M.M. Yunus and ors. Vs. the Calcutta Tramways Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT568(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against judgment and decree dated May 15, 1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, sixth Court at Alipore, District: 24 Parganas in Title Appeal No. 818 of 1985 affirming the judgment and decree dated August 16, 1985 passed by the learned Munsif, fifth Court at Alipore, District: 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 50 of 1981.2. On January 16, 1981 the plaintiff/appellants instituted a suit for ejectment and damages against the Calcutta Tramways Company Limited in the Court of the learned Munsif, fifth Court at Alipore, District: 24 Parganas. It is contended in the plaint of the said suit that the said plaintiffs were the owners of the premises No. 1/2D, Ashu Babu Lane, Police Station: Watgang, Calcutta-23 and the defendant was a tenant under the said plaintiffs in respect of the whole premises. The said suit was instituted, inter alia, on the grounds of default, damages and reasonable requirement. It is contended that a n...
Pranil Kumar Sett Vs. Kishorilal Bysack and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Cal1
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. This Motion has been taken out by one Pran Kumar Bhattacharaya being the auction-purchaser in respect of the suit property being premises No. 16/B Ramesh Dutta Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) for, in substance, setting aside of the report of the Registrar Original Side and also for determination of the amount payable by the defendant no (sic) and/or by the applicant herein, and for other consequential reliefs. The original plaintiff Pranil Kumar Sett, since deceased filed the above suit for enforcement of the mortgage which was created by one Kishorilal Bysack being the original defendant No. 1. On 28th August 1973 preliminary decree was passed. After this suit was filed the original defendant No. 1 had created a puisne mortgage in favour of the defendant No. 2, thus, he was made party to this suit. This Court while passing preliminary decree declared that the amount due to the plaintiff in respect of his mortgage dated ...
Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Deputy Secretary, Labour Department and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ908Cal
P.K. Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the decision of the Appellate authority dated March 5, 2002 in respect of the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, The Appellate Authority rejected the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner Company on the ground that the said Company did not deposit the entire amount of money as directed by the Controlling Authority. From the said order dated March 5, 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority, it appears that the petitioner Company admittedly deposited the entire gratuity amount of Rs. 63,218/- although the interest amount of Rs. 6,322/- was not deposited. The petitioner Company denied its liability to make payment of the interest with gratuity amount and as such deposited only the gratuity amount before preferring the Appeal before the Appellate Authority. In terms of Sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act any person aggrieved by the or...
i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR495(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. The petitioner being the intended vendee has asked for quashing of the order passed by the appropriate authority, namely, respondent No. 1, dated January 28, 1993, purported to have been passed under Section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and also for consequential relief for granting 'No objection certificate' to purchase the two flats, bearing Nos. 1-C and 4-C, situate in the building commonly known as 'Sun Flower Court' at and being premises No. 7, Love Lock Place, Calcutta 700 019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said property'). By the order impugned the Central Government has exercised its option to buy up the said property at a consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of the aforesaid property with respondents Nos. 4 and 5, being the vendor at a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. Thereafter the petitioner under Section 209UD, filed an a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »