Kolkata Court May 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.
C.E.S.C. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Madho Prosad Mahabir Prosad Supplies (P) Lt ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT87(HC)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. Writ Petition No. 555 of 1992 was filed in this Court by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ-petitioners'). By the judgment and order dated 31st July 1996 the learned single Judge was pleased to allow it. The appellants who were the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in it have preferred the present appeal against the said judgment and order.2. The writ petitioner No. 1 is a consumer of the appellant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.E.S.C.'). From their factory situate at 26/27, N.D. Bose Lane, Konnyagor, Hooghly, the writ petitioners carry on the business of bleaching/dyeing and processing of cloth materials. The C.E.S.C. (a licensee, licensed under Part II of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to supply energy) supplies electrical energy to this factory. On 20th February 1992 the C.E.S.C. cut off the supply of energy to it.3. On 24th February 1992 the writ petition was moved. The sum and substance of the case made out in it was that ...
Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Seventh Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT110(HC),[2004(101)FLR32],(2004)IILLJ620Cal
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Order No, 44 dated August 14, 2002 passed by the learned Judge, Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII-71 of 2000.2. The opposite party No. 2 was a godown keeper of the petitioner-company and he was dismissed from his service on October 31, 1994 on the ground of unauthorized absence. The conciliation proceedings having failed, an industrial dispute has been referred to the Seventh Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.3. The workman filed an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 as amended by the West Bengal Act 33 of 1986. The management raised objection, inter alia, on the ground that the workman was running 'Atta Kal Chaki' at Jhargram and as such he was not entitled to interim relief as he has been gainfully employed.4. The learned judge in the tribunal concerned inter alia held that the management has failed to substantiate the ...
Smt. Sushila Devi Jajodia and ors. Vs. Smt. Sita Devi Saraf and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT311(HC)
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioner, inter alia, for the following orders:--(a) Leave be granted to the petitioners to serve notice of this application also on Smt. Rachna Maskara and Sri Amit Bhuwalka.(b) Interim order of injunction passed in the aforesaid suit on 27th July, 1959 be set aside and/or vacated.(c) Maharaja of Burdwan and his legal heirs and representatives be directed to execute the conveyance in respect of Tiretta Bazar Property being premises No. 22 (also known as 22B), Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata in favour of Ramawatar Saraf (HUF), Sanjay Saraf (HUF), Rishi Kumar Acharya, Jugal Kishore Jajodia (HUF), Mannalal Jajodia (HUF), Keshardeo Jajodia (HUF) and Sanwarmal Jajodia (HUF) within a period of 3 months from the date of passing of the order herein;(d) In default, the Registrar, High Court, Calcutta be directed to execute necessary conveyance as stated in prayer (c) above;(e) M/s. Orr. Dignam & Company, Solicitors & Advocate for the Ma...
inspector-in-charge, Railway Protection Force Vs. State of West Bengal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3665
ORDERPradip Kumar Biswas, J.1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner i.e., Inspector-in-Charge Railway Protection Force, Liluah Workshop Post at Liluah Workshop, Dist. Howrah seeking to set aside/ quash the order dated 7th February, 2003, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Howrah in Liluah R.P.F. (W/S) Post Office Case No. 1(1)/2002 dated 15-1-2002 under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this revisional application are as follows :--On 15th January, 2002 one Motleb Molla was arrested at the Chowrasta of S.N. Banerjee Road, Liluah. P.S. Bally with two iron brake blocks belonging to Railways and the said Motleb Molla was arrested since he was not in lawful possession of the said railway properties.3. On the basis, of the leading statements of Motleb Molla, a search was conducted at the shop-cum-godown of M/s. Iron Metal Trading Corpora...
Jyotish Bera and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1176
Gorachand De, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th April, 1996 passed by Shri S. S. Sinha, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. XIX of April, 1992 which arose out of Nayagram P. S. Case No. 39 of 1990 dated 20-12-90 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 482 of 1990 of the Court of the Ld. SDJM, Jhargam convicting thereby all the appellants of the charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and also sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. It was directed in the order that both the sentences were to run simultaneously.2. One Soumendra Nath Das, Block Development Officer of Nayagram and Officer-in-Charge of Nayagram panchayat Samity ...
Vivek Arya Vs. Economic Transport Organisation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT148(HC)
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This application has been filed by the defendant Nos. 18 and 19 in the suit under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The petitioners in this application have prayed before this Court to refer the disputes and differences between the parties to the arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement dated 30th November, 1992 and the suit should be stayed.2. Facts of case pleaded in the petition briefly are as follows:Parties are the members of the same family. The defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 18 alongwith other members of the family formed a partnership firm under the name and style of Economic Transport Organisation with effect from 1st November, 1962. A deed of partnership was executed in respect thereof on 7th November, 1962. The firm carries on business as a transporter and common carrier having its branches and/or land and properties throughout India.3. From time to time the said Deed of Partnership w...
Nabendu Dutta and ors. Vs. Arindam Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-2003
Reported in: [2004]121CompCas150(Cal),[2004]55SCL146(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1.In this motion, the petitioner succeeded in obtaining an ad interim order of status quo, passed by this court in a declaratory action for holding that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have become disqualified to be directors in defendant No. 3-company in view of the provision of Section 274, Sub-section (1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 applied for vacating of the aforesaid order of status quo. However, this application has not been disposed of separately and the same has been treated to be an affidavit-in-opposition to the petition of this motion for convenience sake.2. Short narration of the facts in this case would be relevant in order to find out, prima facie, as to whether the plaintiffs/petitioners are entitled to continuation of the interim order till the disposal of the suit or not. The plaintiffs/ petitioners are holders of equity shares in defendant No. 3, Yule Financing and Leasing (hereinafter referred to as 'Yule'), being defendan...
Motilal Agarwal Vs. Diabari Tea Company Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2003
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas672(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner was carrying on business under the name and style 'O. Sing and Company'. At the relevant time the petitioner supplied chemical and organic fertilizer, pesticides, etc., to the company. On account of supply there had been an outstanding of Rs. 11,61,794.16 as on December 31, 2000. The company made a part payment of Rs. 2 lakhs on January 12, 2001, thereby leaving a sum of Rs. 9,61,794.16 which was confirmed by the company on February 23, 2001. After such balance confirmation the company during the period March, 2001, to April, 2001, made diverse part payments aggregating to Rs. 2.32 lakhs leaving a balance sum of Rs. 7,29,794.16. The petitioner caused a statutory notice of demand served at the former registered office of the company and thereafter initiated the above winding up proceeding.2. In the affidavit-in-opposition the company contended that since the notice was not served at the registered office of the company the winding up petition wa...
Sabarna Roychowdhury Paribar Parishad Vs. the State of West Bengal and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT625(HC)
ORDERA.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a Public Interest Litigation whereby two questions of historical importance have been raised i.e. what is the date of birth of the City of Calcutta (now renamed as 'Kolkata') and whether 'Job Charnayak' was the founder of this city. 2. Since both these two questions raise a serious question of the history and the Court felt that it would not be proper for this Court to undertake this exercise, therefore, this Court by an order dated 12th April, 2002 appointed an expert committee to go into these questions. The order dated 12th April, 2002 reads as follows; 'The Court: By an order dated 5th April, 2002, a committee of the following persons was constituted to go into the question whether Job Charnayak was a founder of Calcutta or not, what is the date of birth of Calcutta and who was the founder:-- 1. Prof. Nemai Sadhan Bose, 2. Prof. Barun De, 3. Prof. Pradip Sinha, 4. Prof. Arun Kumar Dasgupta, 5. Prof. Sushil Chowdhury. All the five professors w...
Pashupati Adhikary Vs. Pradyut Kumar Alias Tarapada Adhikary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT538(HC)
A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. The short question involved in this reference is whether the 'Munsif and 'District Judge' who decide the matter of preemption under Sections 8 and 9 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1955) are the 'authority' under the West Bengal Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1997) or not.2. This question arose because of difference of opinion of two learned single Judges taking contrary view in the matter. The question involved in this matter is whether against the order passed by the District Judge under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, a revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable or not in view of the provisions of the Act of 1997. By virtue of the provisions contained in Sections 7 and 8 of the Act of 1997, jurisdiction of all Courts have been taken away and the same has been conferred on the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1997, except the writ jurisdiction under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »