Kolkata Court August 2004 Judgments
Atrayee Gas Service Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT517(HC),2005(2)CHN50
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a dealer by the Indian Oil Corporation (for short 'the IOC'), the respondent No. 1, for the sale of liquefied petroleum gas during the year 1996. The said dealership was terminated by the IOC by an order of suspension dated 8.3.2004, being Annexure P-18 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order of suspension, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application. The prayers which are relevant are as follows :'(b)A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their men, agents or subordinates to show cause as to why the impugned alleged decision of competent authority of the Corporation to suspend the functioning of the petitioner's distributorship with immediate effect as communicated vide letter bearing reference No. WB/LPG/208/40 dated 8th March, 2004 signed by the respondent No. 4 being Annexure 'P-19' to this writ petition should not be cancelled, quashed and/or withdrawn;(c)A writ o...
Tag this Judgment!Evergreen Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs. Circular Leasing and Resources ( ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: [2005]128CompCas701(Cal),[2005]59SCL553(Cal)
1. The respondent is not called upon. The appeal is intended to be preferred from an order dated 4-8-2004 receiving a winding-up petition and directing advertisements unless instalments are paid. The debt alleged was Rs. 5,00,000. Signed confirmation of account is there made on behalf of the company. The only point taken is that the statutory notice was not served at the registered office of the company.2. We find, however, that it was attempted to be so served but the service was returned as unclaimed.3. Under Section 434(1)(a) statutory presumption shall arise only upon service at the registered office. That is true.4. But it is nowhere stated either in the sections of the Companies Act or in the Company Court Rules that a receiving order can be passed only after proof that the company is unable to pay its debts. The discretion of the Company Court has to be used in all the facts and circumstances of the case before it. The inability of the company to pay its debts may be proved even...
Tag this Judgment!Mousumi Banerjee Vs. First Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ESC763
Amitava Lala, J.1. A very important point has been raised hereunder:It appears to this Court that originally two issues are available under the order of reference: (a) whether the dismissal from service of Smt. Mousumi Banerjee w.e.f. 3.1.2000 is justified? (b) what relief, if any, is she entitled to?2. During the course of hearing the management has taken a preliminary point whether the domestic enquiry is valid or not. Ultimately, by way of an interim order the learned Judge of the First Industrial Tribunal passed a final order by holding that the domestic enquiry, held by the Enquiry Officer, against the delinquent workman was valid, fair and proper. Although several judgments were cited by both the learned Counsel but I find the very important judgment in this arena is the judgment in : (1973)ILLJ278SC in re: Workman of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Pvt. Ltd. etc. Here the Supreme Court decided a very pertinent question in respect of insertion of Section 11A of the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Debanjan Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT197(HC),2005(3)CHN402
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. In the present application, the petitioner/State of West Bengal has challenged an order dated 3.8.2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in B.G.R. Case No. 1581 of 1995 (arising out of Thakurpukur P.S. Case No. 251 dated 21.6.95 under Sections 363/364/366/120B of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the investigating officer for remand of the accused persons to police custody for a further period of 11 days.2. Six students of Jadavpur University, including the present petitioners, under the guidance of Mr. Biswanath Rana aged about 55 years and Mrs. Ira Rana aged about 45 years went to Chandipur, Orissa during summer vacation for 3 days. The excursion team consisting of eight persons reached Chandipur in the morning of 13.5.95 at about 11.00 A.M. They had their accommodation in Shantinivas Guest House. On 16.5.95 when the team was ready to leave Chandipur in the morning at a...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Detergent Corporation and anr. Vs. West Bengal Small Industr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal129,(2005)1CALLT29(HC)
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. I am considering an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India {'the writ petition' in short) along with an application for further reliefs filed by the writ petitioners.2.1. Propose to state the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the said applications:(a) The writ petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and it runs a small-scale industrial unit. The writ petitioner No. 1 is manufacturing detergent powder.(b) The Department of Cottage and Small Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal, adopted decision to market the products manufactured by diverse detergent manufacturers by the West Bengal Small Industries Corporation Limited ('the said Corporation in short) through the public distribution system of the Department of Food and Supply, Government of West Bengal. It was that the detergent would be sold under a common brand name 'WEBSI'.(c) The petitioner No. 1 applied for its enlistment under the said scheme and the said Corporati...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Settlement Commission and ors. Vs. Netai Chandra Rarhi and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2004
Reported in: [2005]142TAXMAN446(Cal)
ORDER BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONPower to reviseSettlement Commission has no power to exercise the power of rectification under section 154, except in exercise of power inherent in it to do justice in a case where because of its action a party is not injured or in other words to rectify the injury caused to the party by reason of an order.Income Tax Act, 1961 s.154 Rectification--POWER OFWhen can be usedHeld: Section 154 only confers power of rectification if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Limit of rectification can be stretched only to the field where the mistake is glaring, obvious, patent and apparent on the face of the record. Glaring, obvious, patent and apparent mistakes are those for which no investigation into facts or determination of law or discussion of debatable points are involved, to establish which long drawn argument would not be necessary and in respect of which no two opinions are possible.Income Tax Act, 1961 s.154 In the Calcutta High Court Dili...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Mint Employees' Union and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOi) and O ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: (2005)1CALLT95(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. Writ Petitioners herein are Calcutta Mint Employees' Union and General Secretary of the said Union.2. The main prayers of the writ petitioners are quoted here in below:a) 'A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to act in accordance of the evidence as evidenced in the meetings dated 15th April 1998 and 5th May 1998 by and between the parties herein.'b) 'A writ of or in the nature of Prohibition do issue restraining the respondents from in any way or manner acting in violation of the said agreement and or in furtherance and the illegal, arbitrary proposal as recorded in the meeting held on 2nd February, 2004 which has been objected to by year petitioners'.c) 'A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari do issue commanding the respondents to transmit to this Hon'ble Court all records pertaining to the instant case so that conscionable justice may be done upon perusal of the same'.3. This writ petition was moved on 25.02.04 exparte, i...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN318
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding of Section K2 Case No. 169 dated 12.6.01 i.e. Shakespeare Sarani P. S. Case No. 169 dated 12.6.01 (G. R. Case No. 1729 of 2001) under Section 406/420 of IPC and the order dated 18.12.02 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter called the CMM), Calcutta thereby issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the de facto complainant-cum-informant Monohor Agarwal previously filed a complaint against this petitioner in the Court of the learned CMM which was registered as complaint case C/2409 of 2001 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the N I Act) alleging that the accused petitioner issued two cheques one bearing No. 004722 dated February 19, 2001 for Rs. 4,00,000.00 and another cheque bearing No. 004723 dated February 2...
Tag this Judgment!SachIn Bera Vs. Bina Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN425
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred challenging the order of remand being Order No. 42 dated 22.8.1991 passed by the learned IIIrd Court of Assistant Judge, Howrah in T.A. No. 119 of 1986, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif in T.S. No. 105 of 1985.2. The plaintiff made out a case in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises No. 24, Debendra Ganguly Road, P.S. Shibpur and the defendant was a licensee under plaintiff with regard to a tea stall on the southern verandah particulars of which is described in the schedule to the plaint. Originally the defendant was a licensee under the plaintiff. At the time of talk of purchase of the suit property, this defendant allegedly assured the plaintiff to remove the business from the suit stall. According to the plaintiff she purchased the suit holding on 27.5.1981 and on the request of the defendant the plaintiff allowed the defendant two months time i.e. to remain there as a licens...
Tag this Judgment!Burn and Company Labourers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Joydeb ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2006Cal79
1. Right to appeal can be had only when such a right is given by the statute. In the instant case admittedly a right of appeal has been given by the statute itself. While granting such right, the statute has prescribed an obligation upon the appellant to file the Memo of Appeal along with the certified copy of the order appealed against. Limitation Act does not apply to the statute in question. A Division Bench of this Court has held so. The appellants are contending that since the Limitation Act is not applicable, anything provided in the Limitation Act cannot be stretched and applied to the procedure of preferring of appeal under the statute in consideration. We have no dispute to the proposition that the Limitation Act does not apply and accordingly the mandates contained in that Act also cannot be locked at all. But the fact remains that a meaningful meaning must be given to the right to prefer the appeal as has been conferred. It cannot be presumed that while such grant has been g...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »