Kolkata Court March 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.
Quoresh Khatoon Vs. Nissar Khan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT538(HC)
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits.2. The facts or the background of this appeal in brief as made out in the plaint and written statement are as follows:The plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the entire 311, Raicharan Ghosh Lane including the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff No. 1 enterd into an agreement with the plaintiff No. 2 for the construction of a shed over the suit property and the said shed was finally built up at the instance of the plaintiff No. 2 as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiff No. 2 took possession of the suit property and the same was kept under lock and key at the gate. But during the absence of the plaintiff No. 2, the defendant forcibly occupied the suit shed. Accordingly, a diary was lodged in the local police station but the but the police did not take any action. The defendant was asked to quit and vacate the factory premises in t...
A. Tosh and Sons (India) Ltd. Vs. Happy Valley Tea Company Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal90,2006(2)ARBLR357(Cal)
ORDERAshim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The parties entered into an agreement on March 12, 1992 whereby the petitioner lent and advanced diverse sums of money to the respondent for smooth running of the Tea Estate. As the monies were not repaid in terms of the agreement, the petitioner initially approached the Civil Court by filing a suit as also applied for interim injunction under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff being the petitioner herein suppressing the arbitration clause incorporated in the agreement. The petitioner also moved the Criminal Court as against the Directors of the respondent-Company. The respondent got the criminal case stayed in view of pendency of the civil proceedings. The petitioner realising their mistake although belatedly approached the named Arbitrator in 2000 and filed their statement of claim before him. According to the petitioner although the arbitrator was approached in 2000 there was hardly any attempt by the arbitr...
Gargi Nath Vs. State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN468
Indira Banerjee, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the suspension of the petitioner who is the Principal of a reputed girls' college of South Calcutta, namely, Jogamaya Devi College.2. The order of suspension has been passed in a hurriedly convened emergency meeting of the Governing Body of the college held on 7th September, 2004 at the residence of Sri Asokendu Roy, President of the Governing Body, located about 10 kilometres away from the college premises.3. The Governing Body meeting was attended amongst others by Sri Asokendu Roy, President of the Governing Body and Sri Anil Mukherjee, local Councillor and member of the Governing Body. Apart from Sri Asokendu Roy and Anil Mukherjee the meeting was attended by 2 non-teaching employees being members of the Governing Body, namely, Aniruddha Chakraborty and Dulal Mondal, three teachers' representatives in the Governing Body, namely. Dr. Ashok Baral, Ms. Indrani Mukherjee and Ms. Maitreyi Bardhan Roy and the students' repr...
Gulshan Bibi Vs. Hasmat Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN667
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand.2. This case has a chequered history. Certain facts are necessary to appreciate the points involved in this appeal.3. The plaintiff on or about September 24, 1980 instituted this suit for declaration, partition, recovery of possession and mesne profits.4. By judgment and decree dated February 5, 1997 the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) at Port Blair, decreed the said suit on contest, inter alia, for partition with separate possession in preliminary form against the contesting defendant No. 1 and ex parte against the rest.5. The defendant No. 1 preferred Title Appeal No. 02 of 1997. By judgment and decree dated March 30,1999 the learned District Judge at Port Blair allowed the said appeal and sent back the suit to the Trial Court on remand for the purpose of retrial.6. The Trial Court by judgment and decree dated October 25, 2000 again decreed the suit for partition and separate possession in preliminary fo...
Bimal Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN154
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The petitioner herein has challenged the actions of the respondent Insurance Company regarding non-payment of the insurance claim in connection with the accident policy of a bona fide policy holder viz. the son of the petitioner.2. From the records it appears that the son of the petitioner, namely, the victim Bapi Chandra, made a policy on 15th October, 1999 under Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy of the New India Assurance Company Limited, Howrah Branch, through the respondent Golden Trust Financial Services.3. The policy holder unfortunately met with a motor accident and died on 22nd April, 2002. The writ petitioner herein, who is the father of the policy holder, made a representation before the Divisional Manager. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Howrah Branch, for immediate settlement of the claim. It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of complying with all the necessary formalities, respondent authorities her...
S. Indu Bala Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT138(HC),2005(3)CHN158
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated August 05, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No. 128 of 2004. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner holding, inter alia, that the action of the respondents in not accepting the application of the writ petitioner, for admission in medical courses in the institutions on the mainland for the year 2004-2005, was justified.2. In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands several categories of persons are residing. Quotas were fixed for the persons residing in the islands for the purpose of admission to engineering and medical courses. There has been a long-standing dispute between the residents and, ultimately, pursuant to an order passed by this Court in C.O. No. 11514 of 1995, the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India issued an order dated May 30, 1996 laying down the criteria for the allotment of professional/technical ...
Priyamvada Devi Birla (Since Deceased) Vs. Madhav Prasad Birla (Since ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal6
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above application being G. A. No. 2721 of 2004 has been taken out by the propounder/executor of a testamentary document dated 18th April, 1999 of the above testatrix Priyamvada for discharge of Caveats lodged by one Krishna Kumar Birla, Basanta Kumar Birla, one Ganga Prosad Birla and one Yasha Bardhan Birla. Sri R. S. Lodha, applicant herein says that the aforesaid four persons have no caveatable interest in the estate of the Priyamvada Devi Birla since deceased (hereinafter referred to as the Lady)) as they do not have any slightest interest in the estate left by the Lady. Only Laxmi Devi Newar and Radha Devi Mohta the sisters of her late husband Madhab Prasad Birla, since deceased (hereinafter in short M.P.) are the heiresses and legal representatives to succeed the estate left by Lady in case of death intestacy. Obviously, it is the caveators at this stage who are to establish their right to maintain the caveats. In their affidavits in opposition...
Commr. of Cus. (Prev.) Vs. Ratan Kumar Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT265(HC),2005(4)CHN26,2005(189)ELT11(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J.1. The background:The seized goods were confiscated. The order of confiscation was challenged by the dealer successfully. The order of confiscation was set aside. Though Section 150 of the Customs Act prescribes that the goods not confiscated can be sold only through auction or tender or by consent of the owner in any other manner after giving notice to the owner. That apart, ordinarily until finalisation of the proceedings the goods could not be sold except under an order passed in connection with the proceedings or in case of perishable goods. However, in this case, the goods were not perishable. Still the department had sold the goods during the pendency of the appeal without following the legal formalities. Therefore, on account of being successful in the appeal, the dealer asked for return of the goods. The goods having been sold, the Customs Authority was disabled from returning the goods. The owner claimed for the value of the goods. The dispute related to the value...
Rekha Mitra and ors. Vs. Shyamal Kumar Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT353(HC)
Indira Banerjee, J. 1. This appeal under Section 10(f) of Companies Act, 1956 is against an order dated 25th August, 2002 passed by the learned Company Law Board in Company Petition No.56 of 1998 filed by the respondent against tile Appellants under sections 397, 398, 403 and 409 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. In the said company petition, the Respondent complained of various alleged acts of mismanagement and oppression on the part of the appellants including transfer of property of the Appellant No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as the company) at Gharsuguda, in the name of the Appellant Nos. 3 and 4, failure to submit balance sheets of the company with the Registrar of Companies, failure to deposit Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund contributions of the workers, siphoning of assets of the company, fraudulent transfer of the immovable properties of the company to one D.N. Mehta in flagrant disregard of the terms of settlement submitted in this Court in Suit No. 261 of 1974 and C...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN616,(2005)IIILLJ297Cal
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.The Background:1. In this case the workmen, the Telex Operators, claimed that they were entitled to special allowance at the same rate that was allowed to the employees operating Advanced Ledger Posting Machines (ALPM) and Advanced Electronic Accounting Machines (AEAM). The dispute raised by the Union being referred to the learned Tribunal resulted into an award granting the relief of special allowance at the same rate available to the operators of ALPM and AEAM. By reason of the award, the attempt of the Management to rectify the alleged mistake of allowing the special allowance at the rate available to the other categories of employees operating ALPM and AEAM in terms of the Settlement dated 29th of March, 1987, Annexure 'P-1' at page 3d of the application, to the Telex Operators entitled to the special allowance as contemplated in paragraph 5.2 of Chapter V of the First Bipartite Settlement, was set at naught.1.1. This was challenged before this Court in a writ p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »