Kolkata Court January 2005 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.
Hall and Anderson Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal156,[2005]125CompCas97(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition was filed mainly for two reasons. Firstly, for a declaration that the management of the land and building situate at premises No. 31, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta, and more fully mentioned in the schedule annexed hereto and marked A and the said property business of petitioner No. 1 and other business referred thereto save and except the said textile mills business and/or textile undertaking are not covered and have not vested in the Central Government by and under the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Ordinance, 1983. Mandamus and other prayers in connection thereto are also categorically made therein. Secondly, a prayer is made for a declaration of such Ordinance as ultra vires and void. The second prayer is no longer subsistent in view of the declaration of the Supreme Court that the Ordinance is intra vires. Therefore, no discussion is required on the second prayer.2. By an order dated October 26, 1983, an interim order was passed ...
Deepak Kejriwal and anr. Vs. Govinda Enterprises Private Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC388,[2005]124CompCas756(Cal),[2005]62SCL519(Cal)
Amitava Lala, J.1. Both the appeals are arising out of self-same order. The appellant under the first (numbered) appeal was the petitioning creditor being C. P. No. 174 of 2003 (Govinda Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. Deepak Kejriwal) under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, before the learned single judge sitting in the company jurisdiction. The second (numbered) appeal as aforesaid is made by the company itself.2. Factually, the petitioning creditor sold, supplied and delivered certain materials in between November 9, 2001 and June 22, 2002. The company duly accepted the goods without raising any objection. After giving credit a sum of Rs. 18,96,453.20 is unpaid along with the claim of interest at 24 per cent. per annum. The company took two defences. The first one is that due to abrupt stoppage of supply the company suffered damages. In reply to the statutory notice the tune was for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs wherein in the affidavit-in-opposition the tune was Rs. 3,50...
Sekh Sajahan Vs. Shebaits of Pir Gorachand Saheb Sekh Abdul Mohit and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal178
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This second appeal has arisen out of a suit for permanent injunction. The case as made out in the plaint is inter alia as follows :The suit property is a 'Pirothan' property of Pir Gorachand Saheb and the predecessor of the plaintiffs Ahid was the shebait of the suit property. The lands in the suit khatian were divided amongst the shebaits and all the shebaits were possessing those lands by demarcating boundaries. Ahid was possessing the suit property by demarcating boundaries within the knowledge of other shebaits. The plaintiffs have also been possessing the suit property since the time of deceased Ahid. The suit plot is homestead land. There are three huts upon .03 decimals of land in, the suit plot and Ahid used to live there with his family. The said .03 decimals of land have been recorded in the name of the plaintiffs in present L. R. Khatian. The plaintiffs have been possessing the remaining .12 decimals of land in the suit plot since the time of their pre...
Jhonson and Jhonson Limited Vs. Third Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN608,[2005(107)FLR1045]
Amitava Lala, J.1. In this writ petition award of the learned Judge, Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal dated 29th August, 2003 has been challenged by the employer. Such award was published by an office order of the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal dated 10th September, 2003. The issues before the Tribunal were as follows :(1) Whether the termination of service of Shri Subir Guhathakurta w.e.f. 19.09.96 is justified?(2) To what relief, if any, is he entitled?2. From the penultimate paragraph of the judgment in support of the award I find that the learned Judge held that the respondent No. 3/employee is able to establish his case and on the other hand the employer has failed to discharge its onus that the employee was working in managerial or supervisory capacity in the company. It has been decided that the employee is entitled to all reliefs claimed. He is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of terminat...