Kolkata Court September 2002 Judgments
Ajoy Kumar Saha Vs. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN572
ORDER1. Leave is granted in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.2. After hearing the parties and considering the application, we are however not inclined to grant any stay because of the view which we are going to take in the present matter.3. It appears that the appellant who is a hirer in respect of 12 vehicles from the concerned financier being the respondent, made an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The contention of the applicant before the Trial Court was that as the hirer was in a very bad financial position, leave may be granted to the appellant to liquidate the outstanding dues by easy monthly instalments.4. It appears to us that the learned Judge, after hearing the parties, ultimately granted liberty to the appellant to pay up the dues in monthly instalments in accordance with the hire purchase agreement itself which comes around to Rs. 3, 55, 000/- per month with effect from August 31, 2002. The learned Judge further directed that th...
Tag this Judgment!Bata India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT598(HC),(2003)179CTR(Cal)147,[2002]257ITR622(Cal)
M. H. S. Ansari, J.1. The petitioner-assessee has in the instant writ application questioned the order of approval passed by respondent No. 1 containedin his communication dated November 8, 2001, being annexure P-21 whereby special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been ordered and a decision taken to appoint an auditor.2. The case of the petitioner is that there is no warrant to order special audit in terms of Section 142(2A). It is the case of the petitioners that an audit has been conducted under the provisions of Section 44AB and such report in prescribed Form No. 3CD has been furnished along with the statutory audit report under the Companies Act, 1956. The assessing authorities have not found any fault either with tax audit report (Section 44AB) or the statutory audit report. It is, therefore, contended that there was no material whatsoever before the respondent authorities on the basis of which they could be satisfied that the nature of the company's a...
Tag this Judgment!Dever Park Builders Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Smt. Madhuri Jalan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Cal55
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this extraordinary suit the short but complex point has been raised by the parties as to whether the evidence recorded by the original defendant No. 1 Mahabir Prasad Jalan, since deceased on commission should be expunged and/or rejected at this stage, as, cross-examination could not be completed in view of his death during examination.2. By my order dated July 18, 2001, though having heard the learned Lawyer for the plaintiff I expunged the evidence of the aforesaid defendant, however, subsequently I granted stay of operation of the aforesaid order and I decided to resolve the issue raised above.3. Mr. Bimal Kumar Chatterjee, Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee Senior Advocate contends that it is true the original defendant did not get opportunity to face cross-examination fully in view of his death. However, evidence so far given by him in his full examination in chief and in part cross-examination together with document exhib...
Tag this Judgment!Licensed Building Surveyors Association and anr. Vs. State of West Ben ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)CHN659
Barm Ghosh, J.1. On 19th April, 1999 the Government of West Bengal, Department of Municipal Affairs, Writers' Buildings, Calcutta, published a notification in the Extraordinary Official Gazette in exercise of the power conferred by Section 600 read with Section 404 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') whereby certain amendments were effected to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Original Rules'). In the present writ petition the validity of the said amendments has been challenged. The State as well as the Calcutta Municipal Corporation constituted by and under the Act have filed affidavits. The notice of the petition was served upon the learned Advocate General of the State. I have heard the learned Advocate General, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the added respondent, the learned counsel for the State and also the learned counsel for the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!Kanai Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT202(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short) alleging inaction on the part of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), District: North 24 Parganas in not approving the panel for appointment of Assistant Teacher in language group in Ashoknagar Boys' Secondary School.2. The facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are as under:(a) On account of retirement of Gour Kanti Ray, Assistant Teacher inlanguage group of the said school, the District Inspector of Schools granted prior permission to the school authorities under Memo No.1321/G dated November 11, 1995 towards preparation of panel for appointment to the said post. It is indicated in the prior permission that the said post was meant for general category candidates and the qualification prescribed was B.A., preferably trained; the school authorities were directed to follow first and second stages of the recruitment procedures simultaneously.(b) The school no...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Basudeb Chowdhury Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Board
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT275(HC)
P.K. Biswas, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.95 passed by Sri G.C. Sarkar, the learned Assistant District Judge, Tamluk in Title Appeal No. 13 of 95 reversing those dated 13.12.94 passed by Ms. Anjali Sinha, the learned Munsif, Tamluk in O.S. No. 60 of 93.2. The suit before the lower Court was filed seeking for eviction of a tenant with mesne profit. The trial Judge was pleased to pass the decree in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, which was reversed by the learned lower Appellate Court. The substantial question of law for the determination of the present appeal was formulated as under:'Effect of notices, issued on 30th November, 1992 as also on February 15, 1993 issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent in view of the provisions of Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act,'3. The plaintiff-appellant Basudev Chowdhury filed a suit being O.S. No. 60 of 93 before the Court of the 3rd Munsif at Tamluk. Dist-Midnapore alleging ...
Tag this Judgment!Asit Baran Mukherjee Vs. Fuleswari Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)CHN746
Malay Kumar Basu, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 27th November, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in Criminal Motion No. 267 of 2001 of his court. By this order the learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the order under revision passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Diamond Harbour in Misc. Case No. 225 of 1992 under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. The wife, Smt. Fuleswari Mukherjee filed that application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance from the husband on the ground that the latter neglected to maintain her and she having no independent source of income was passing her days with great hardship along with a child at the house of her father.2. During trial of the case the petitioner-wife examined herself and her witnesses but the opposite party-husband did not adduce any evidence, although at the time of the argument he was present and advanced his argument. After considering th...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanta Kumar Basu Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT319(HC),(2003)IIILLJ189Cal
Mahemmad Habeeb Shams Ansari, J.1. Petitioner has questioned the conclusions of the enquiry officer being annexure 'F', order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority dated October 6, 1999 being Annexure 'I' as also the order of the appellate authority confirming the same being annexure 'M'.2. The disciplinary authority by its letter dated June 30, 1999 (annexure 'F') forwarded the report of the enquiry officer dated June 28 1999 and offered the petitioner an opportunity to make his representation in relation thereto. Upon considering the same the disciplinary authority for the reasons stated in his order being annexure 'I' agreed with the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer and passed the order of dismissal which was also confirmed by the appellate authority.3. In the charge sheet issued to the petitioner the 1st charge was with respect to the 'Job Done' certificates issued by the petitioner showing therein the quantum of work done by the Contractors' workmen relati...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Amal Kumar Roychowdhury and anr. Vs. the Calcutta Municipal Corpor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT452(HC)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the petitioners owners of a building have prayed for direction upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation ('Corporation') to pay the excess amount deposited by them in compliance with the provisions contained in Section 189(6) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act ('Act') with interest at the rate of 12% per annum consequent to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal reducing the valuation assessed by the Hearing Officer.2. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Hearing Officer fixing annual valuation of the premises at Rs. 18,580/- the petitioners preferred an appeal being M.A. No. 1990 of 1998 before the Municipal Assessment Tribunal and deposited a sum of Rs. 53,186/- in terms of Section 189(6) of the Act. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and after setting aside the order of Hearing Officer fixed the annual valuation at Rs. 11,000/- with effect from 3rd quarter, 1994-95. The petitioners wrote letter to the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Prakash and ors. Vs. Jayanta Kumar Bose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Cal153
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this suit two applications have been taken out by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and by the defendant No. 5, basically for the same relief. In the application of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 reliefs are more specific, for setting aside and/or cancelling order dated 13th February 1996, revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and for taking the plaint off the file.2. The petitioner, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 represented by their Senior Lawyer Mr. Hirak Mitra, contends firstly, that the order dated 13th February 1996, extending the returnable date for service of Writ, of summons, be set aside and cancelled as the same was passed ex parte. Secondly Court had no jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order after expiry of three years from the date on which the fresh Writ of summons ought to have been lodged for service upon the defendants and there was no material in the petition for extending the time. By efflux of time for three years, valuable right h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »