Kolkata Court November 2003 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.
indofer Society and ors. Vs. Director General of Foreign Trade and Add ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN374
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.1. I had occasion to consider the opinion of my learned brother Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee. I am in full agreement with him. As far as this case is concerned, the Division Bench was justified in calling the writ petition to be decided by the Division Bench.2. Apart from this as a Chief Justice I have full Constitutional and inherent power to fix the roaster and to list matters either to the Single Bench or Division Bench as may be considered proper in each case. In the present case I have gone through the facts and I find that it is a fit case to assign before this Division Bench. This case involves abuse of process of this Court, The parties had agreed for taking up the matter by the earlier Division Bench by the order dated 24th April, 2001, they cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold. The earlier Division Bench by the order dated 24th April, 2001, as reproduced by brother Justice Banerjee in his order, took up the matter with the agreement of the parties ...
Bangshibadan Nandi and ors. Vs. Jnan Sankar Mitra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT352(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This contempt application has been made by the petitioners for alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 6th January, 2000 passed by the Court. The alleged contemnors are the named Chairman of the concerned District Primary School Council and the named District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education) of the concerned District of West Bengal.2. The original order dated 6th January, 2000 has two parts. The first part is for making a separate panel of the ex-census employees by the Employment Exchange and forwarding the names accordingly for the purpose of interview and appointment. The second part is that in view of a Division Bench judgment being 1997(1) CLJ 501 (Ratan Kumar Saha and Ors. v. State and Ors.) the Chairman of the concerned Council will consider the respective cases of the candidates sympathetically about age bar as there was no fault of the petitioners in this respect. It was also held that such order of the Division Bench has a binding effect upon this...
The Ganges Printing Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Sub-divisional Offic ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT373(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This writ petition has been made by a Company by the pen of the Executive Director, the petitioner No. 2 herein. The prayer of the writ petition is to withdraw, revoke, recall and/or cancel notification being annexure 'J' to the writ petition and pass an order of exemption under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and various others consequential reliefs.2. On 17th February, 1976 the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force. It appears from the records that an application was filed under Section 20 of the Act on 6th December, 1976 for exemption of excess vacant land. On 13th December, 1976 a statement was filed by the petitioner No. 1 before the authority under Section 6(1) of the Act. On 12th August, 1981 a memo was issued by the Governmental Authority requesting the petitioner to remain present at site for enquiring in connection with the statement filed under Section 6(1) of the Act. On 17th August, 1981 the petitione...
Mallar Mukherjee Vs. Ruby Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN26
Narayan Chandra Sil, J.1. As many as three review applications along with two petitions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are under consideration before this Court. All those matters arose out of the Civil Revisional Case Nos. C. O. No. 897 of 2002 and C. O. No. 900 of 2002.2. The revisional application being R.V.W. 361 of 2003 has been filed by the wife while the other two review applications namely R.V.W. 626 of 2003 and R.V.W. 627 of 2003 have been filed by the husband and in those two review applications filed by the husband two separate petitions being C.A.N. 2379 and C.A.N. 2380 both of 2003 have been filed respectively under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.C. A. N. 2379 of 2003 & C. A. N. 2380 of 20033. I shall first take up the applications for limitation. The ground taken in both the applications for condonation of delay are identical. It is stated there that both the revisional applications were disposed of on 19th December, 2002. The applicant applied for obtaining the u...
B.S.L. Ltd. (Formerly Bhilwara Synthetics Co. Ltd.) Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-20-2003
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Cal)121,[2004]267ITR754(Cal)
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. The assessee, a public limited company being in need of funds for its increased working capital requirements, made a public issue of its equity shares for raising working capital. In this connection, the assessee incurred expenses of Rs. 9,25,624 which was claimed by it as revenue expenditure as was incurred for the purpose of its business for the assessment year 1987-88.2. The Assessing Officer, by his order dated June 29, 1990, disallowed the said expenditure holding the same to be capital expenditure. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who by order dated December 30, 1991, remanded the matter with a direction to examine the order of the Controller of Capital Issues in respect of the said public issue. The Assessing Officer by his fresh order dated July 30, 1992, again held that the expenses were capital in nature.3. Further appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and t...
Shyamali Mitra and ors. Vs. Manindra Nath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN138
Ajoy Nath Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by the erstwhile tenant from a decree of eviction. The premises in suit is a single shop room on Girish Avenue, Calcutta.2. It was held under a lease for 21 years covering 1.11.1965 to 31.10.1986.3. The suit for eviction was filed in 1987 after the term expired.4. Although 16 years have expired since, the landlord is still fighting the litigation.5. In the impugned judgment there is nothing which needs any correction by us. None of the points urged in the Court below was even touched upon by the appellant before us.The appellant went on a completely different track.6. It was argued that the West Bengal Rent Laws controlling the lease did not apply to leases for durations above 20 years. But if the lease contained provisions allowing either the landlord or the tenant to terminate it at his option before the expiry of the term, then the Rent Laws would apply.7. For showing this the proviso to Section 3 Sub-section (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tena...
Cold Gold Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)CHN354
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. In this appeal Mr. Aninda Mitra, Senior Counsel, appearing with Mr. Sarkar, had raised a simple but interesting question that whether once an order of status quo is granted in the facts and circumstances of this case on 8th September, 2003, could an application made under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) by the defendant-respondent herein be heard along with the application for injunction and the forcible taking of possession by the defendant through police help could be allowed to be continued in violation of the order of status quo. Relying on the decisions in Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun and Ors., : AIR1986Cal220 ; Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association and Anr., : AIR1991Mad323 and Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr., : AIR1996SC2005 , he contended that in case it is found that the order of injunction or status quo is violated, in that event, the Court has inherent power to restore the situ...
Pradip Kumar Goenka and ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Bhartia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal89
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This application (G. A. No. 3317 of 2003) dated September 1st, 2003 has been filed by Smt. Lalita Devi Goenka, the defendant No. 2 in the suit. She prays for appointment of Commission under Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recording her own evidence.2. The defendant No. 2 has stated that because of sickness she is unable to come to this Court to depose in the case. As evidence of her sickness she has annexed to this application a certificate purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner. This certificate dated July 28th, 2003 reads as follows :'TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERNThis is to certify that Mrs. Lalita Goenka (Age : 71 years) w/o. Late Bhagawati Prasad Goenka of 11, Ashoka Road, Kolkata-700027 has been under my treatment since April 2003 Degenerative Disc Disease of Lumber Spine with Osteoporosis. She has had a recurrence of her back pain since 27-7-03 and she has been advised to take bed rest for 4 weeks after which I ...
Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc. Vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal142,2004(2)ARBLR353(Cal)
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This application (T. Mo. 597 of 2003) is for recalling any order dated November 11th, 2003 passed in T. No. 595 of 2003. The order dated November 11th, 2003 is an interim order passed at the instance of the petitioner in E. O. S. No. 11 of 2003. The interim order is in terms of prayers (a) & (c) of the Master's Summons (T. No. 595 of 2003). The said prayers (a) & (c) are as follows :--'(a) Injunction restraining the respondent company, i.e., Hindustan Copper Limited from selling, transferring, alienating and/cir encumbering, in any manner whatsoever, the premises being 'Tamra Bhavan/ Copper House' situated at 1. Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, P.S. Karya, Calcutta-700 019 till the disposal of Extraordinary Suit No. 11 of 2003. (c) An order of attachment be passed attaching the said Tamra Bhavan for a sum of U.S. $ 564,314.45.'2. The order dated November 11th, 2003 was passed after hearing the parties, and the respondent in E. O. S. No. 11 of 2003 which has ta...
Calcutta Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-19-2003
Reported in: IV(2004)BC256,[2004]120CompCas488(Cal),[2004]56SCL86(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.The important question is that the company, M/s. Calcutta Jute ., having gone to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called as 'the BIFR') can implement the award of the learned judge, 4th Industrial Tribunal, dated November 1, 2000, followed by the notification of the State of West Bengal, Labour Department, on July 31, 2001, or not. It is significant to note that this writ petition was filed on April 2, 2003.The contention of the petitioner is that the case after being registered with the BIFR proceeded accordingly. A prima facie view was taken by the BIFR that the unit is not viable and the company would have to be wound up. Notice was also directed to be served upon the company to show cause as to why the winding up order should not be approved. However, an appeal was preferred from such order to the Appellate Authority, i.e., the AAIFR and the appeal was disposed of upon sanctioning a scheme of revival or rehabilitation in favour of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »