Kolkata Court September 2004 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.
Md. Ali Akbar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: AIR2006Cal66,(2005)1CALLT590(HC)
A.K. Bisi, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Md. Ali Akbar, against the judgment and Order passed by the learned single Judge on 23.2.2004 in W.P. No. 1276(W) of 2004. By the judgment and Order impugned under appeal the learned single Judge dismissed the writ application filed by the present appellant as writ petitioner.2. The factual matrix leading to the instant appeal may briefly be narrated thus. As per the case of the writ petitioner/appellant, Shalimar Works (1980) Ltd, is a public limited company and conducts 4 years' Marine Apprenticeship Course without stipend which is recognized by the Director General of Shipping. The said Shalimar Works (1980) Ltd. is also a marine institution recognized and approved by the Director General of Shipping, Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. The certificate of the said training courses is given by the Director General of Shipping, Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, and the selection procedure and the c...
AshwIn Properties Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN134
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, being the owner of the premises No. 11, Pollock Street, Calcutta was served with a notice having No. 000013 dated 24.4.2000 under Sections 238 and 271 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') intimating as water supplied for domestic purpose was being used for purposes other than domestic, the petitioner should desist forthwith from such use of water for any purpose other than domestic purpose as it was in contravention of Section 238 of the Act, failing which water connection would be cut off or turned off under Section 275(1)(C) of the Act without any further reference. By letter dated 27.4.2000 the petitioner replied to the said letter intimating that the premises is wholly tenanted having offices therein, tenants do not use water for manufacturing purpose, no manufacturing work is done and water is not used for gardens or washing animals. It was stated water was not used for any commercial purpose as envisaged un...
In Re: Madhav Prasad Birla (D)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal1
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Two separate Notices of Motions have been taken out in connection with two separate matters as mentioned herein-above. Both the matters are disposed by this common judgment and order, as the question involved therein are identical and similar. Both the deceased left behind two wills of the same date dated 13th July 1982, said to have been executed by them. The applicants in both the matters have filed the aforesaid two applications for grant of probate to the aforesaid two Wills admittedly without annexing the respective original Wills, As such the present Notices of Motions have been taken out for granting leave to the Department to treat and accept the applications made by the petitioners for grant of probate with notarized true photocopy of the Wills, as regular and made in due compliance with the requirement of law on the petitioners undertaking to produce the original Will as and when required by the Hon'ble Court; alternatively to treat and accept...
Hindustan Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN153,2005(192)ELT48(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length at the stage of admission of this appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the 'Code'). By the order dated 20.06.03, which is under appeal, the learned Judge of 3nd Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta held that the Civil Court cannot entertain the suit, being Title Suit No. 1653 of 2002, as the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 9 of the Code. As such, the learned Judge refused to pass any order on the injunction petition filed by the appellant and rejected the same with costs.2. The appeal is against that judgment.3. The learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal argued that the learned Trial Judge erred in law while construing the provisions of Section 9 of the Code. The learned Counsel submitted that unless there is any specific statutory bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the Court should have entertained the civil suit. It wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›