Kolkata Court April 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.
Pawan JaIn and ors. Vs. Hindusthan Club Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)5CompLJ1(Cal),[2005]62SCL610(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This motion has been taken out for interlocutory relief of order of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and each of them and/or by their servants and agents or assigns or otherwise from denying, the plaintiffs or any of them the right as nominees and to contest election for the post of Executive Committee members at the AGM [annual general meeting] of the company scheduled to be held on 18 December 2004, and for mandatory injunction commanding the defendants to permit the plaintiffs and each of them to contest the election for the posts of the Executive Committee members of the company to be held on 18 December 2004 and also for appointment of an independent person to conduct or supervise or oversee the annual general meeting of the defendant No. 1 to be held on 18 December 2004. This application has arisen out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are, and each of them is entitled to be, eligible for contesting the election for the pos...
Smt. Phool Lata Somani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Cal)339,[2005]276ITR216(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta J.1. By this application the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated March 17, 1997, whereby and whereunder the Commissioner has declined to entertain the application for revision made under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Of course, he has recorded reasons for not entertaining the revision application. He has said in his cryptic order that from the perusal of the assessment records and the report of the Assessing Officer it appears that despite opportunity being given the assessee failed to produce evidence regarding investment made by the petitioner. The assessee-petitioner was also asked to produce personal drawings but no particulars were produced. Therefore, the Commissioner felt that discretion should not be exercised in entertaining the application for revision for making an enquiry.Mr. Khaitan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the ...
Mohanlal Mitra and anr. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN282
Soumitra Sen, J. 1. In this application the petitioner has challenged an order dated 28th November, 2001 passed by the Special Officer, Delhi and also an order dated 28th January, 2005 passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal whereby the order of the Special Officer, Building was affirmed.2. The facts of the case in short are as follows:The respondent No. 6 complained before the Municipal Authorities (hereinafter referred to as the KMC) that the petitioner had constructed a five storied building over the existing building without any sanction plan. It was also alleged that the foundation of the building was not strong enough to hold the load of an additional floor thereby making the entire building unsafe.3. Pursuant to such complaint a notice under Section 400(1) was issued upon the petitioner. After hearing the parties in a proceeding initiated under Section 400(1) the Special Officer, Building after examining the matter in great details came to the conclusion that certain construct...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Budhlani Engineering P. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas867(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This is an application for setting aside of an award passed by the learned arbitrator in the arbitration between the aforesaid parties. The award is a speaking one and proceeding commenced when the Arbitration Act, 1940 (since repealed), was in force. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 30 and 33 of the aforesaid Act has been invoked. There is no dispute as to the applicability of the aforesaid provision nor do I find under the law any doubt about it. Going by the grounds made in the said petition there is no substance under the law to entertain the application. All the grounds mentioned in the petition relate to the alleged wrong appreciation of the facts by the learned arbitrator. On what ground the application can be accepted is precisely mentioned in Section 30 of the said Act. None of the grounds specifically allege in the petition. However, Clause (c) of Section 30 of the said Act enables the court to examine whether the award is otherwise invalid or...
Sri Sri Iswar Gopal Gobinda Jew Thakur and ors. Vs. Rupa Mukherjee and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN720
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. This summons was taken out originally by one Debabrata Bose, since deceased being the son of the settler of the subject trust posing a number of questions for opinion of this Court, the questions are as follows:(a) Was the settler entitled to confine the right of shebaitship only to his lineal male descendants?(b) Whether all heirs (male or female) of sisters of the plaintiffs No. 2 are entitled to become beneficiaries of the Estate?(c) Whether the female heirs of the deceased brothers of the plaintiff No. 2 can claim to be beneficiaries of the Estate?(d) Whether female heirs of the settler can be excluded from shebaitship by virtue of Clause 2 (iii) (b) of the said Deed? If not, what is the effect of Clause 2 (iii) (b) of the Deed Trust?(e) Whether Clauses 11 of the said Deed is valid, binding and enforceable on the heirs of the settler and if so to what extent?(f) At present, who, amongst the plaintiff No. 2 and the defendants are eligible to represent in...
Smt. Ashoka Das Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT37(HC),2005(4)CHN189
1. This is an application filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petition is at the instance of one Sm. Ashoka Das wife of Sri Lokenath Das of Village Madhubati. She alleges that she had a son called Netai who was about 36 years. According to her, on 18th February, 2002 at about 1.00/1.30 P.M. the said Netai Das was picked up by 2/3 persons in civil dress claiming themselves to be the Police Officers. He was taken to Singur Police Station. However, ultimately the petitioner came to know that he was taken to Bally Police Station. It is further claimed that on the next day some persons went to see Netai in Bally Police Station where he was detained and after great persuasion the sentry allowed the persons concerned to talk with said Netai when Netai disclosed that he was beaten by the accused police. (The allegation is against 4 accused persons. They being (1) Sri Sunil Biswas, Inspector-in-Charge, Bally Police Station; (2) Sri Amal Kanti Das, Sub-Inspector o...
Chrisomar Corporation Vs. the Owners and Parties Interested in the Ves ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT237(HC)
Asim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. M.V. Nikolaos-S was owned by Third Element Enterprises at the relevant time. The vessel was flying a flag of Republic of Sipras at the relevant time. The plaintiff supplied bunkers and other necessaries to the said vessel as well as rendered necessary services to her at the Port of Durban on the terms and conditions agreed by and between the parties in or about November, 1999. According to the plaintiff the bunkers were received by the master, the services were rendered to the ship as acknowledged by the master of the vessel. The plaintiff raised invoices on November 26, 1999 for US$ 94,611.25 which remain unpaid.2. While the vessel was at Indian Port the plaintiff filed the above suit on January 6, 2000. Simultaneously with the filing of the suit the plaintiff moved an application for arrest of the ship in question and got the same arrested on the same date i.e. 6th January, 2000. The vessel remain arrested at the Indian Port for few days. None claiming the o...
Rajiv JaIn Vs. Cc (Port) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(102)ECC58,2005(187)ELT435(Cal)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.The Court:1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the customs authorities regarding release of the imported goods in compliance with order of the appellate tribunal dated March 15th, 2005.2. Since the question of law raised in the writ petition, can be decided finally on the agreed facts and dates, I am of the view that without calling upon the respondents to file opposition, the writ petition should be disposed of at this admission stage itself.3. The petitioner imported certain photocopier machines. He declared them as capital goods. The bill of entry was filed immediately, after importing the goods sometime in October 2004. Since the assessment was not being made for determining the duty payable and the goods remained in the port area accruing demurrage liability on the petitioner, he moved Writ Petition No. 209 of 2005 before this Court. By order dated February 9th, 2005 such writ petition was finally disposed of directing the competent...
Jai Glass and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the West Bengal State Electricit ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT343(HC)
Soumitra Sen, J. 1. This is an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or Setting aside of an award dated 29th/30the March, 1995. passed by the Deputy Eletrical Inspector, West Bengal. The petitioner and the respondent NO. 1 the West Bengal State Electricity Board (hearinafter referred to as 'the WBSEB') had entered into an agreement for supply electricity under certain terms and condiditons. Clause 27 of the said agreement provides as follows:-'should any dispute or difference arises between the Board and the Consumer relating to any of the matters in this Agreement, the same shall be referable to two Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party to the dispute and provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 shall apply to such arbitration in all other respects.' 2. Disputes and differences arose as between the parties with regard to the electricity bills, which were challenged before this Court Under Article 226. The petitioner also filed a special suit under S...
Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. Inspector of Factories
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN594,[2006(110)FLR669],(2006)IILLJ603Cal
Asit Kumar Bisi, J.1. By the present revision application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of case No.C-1013 of 2003 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (in short the Act) pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.2. The facts leading to filing of the instant revision application may briefly be stated thus :The petitioner is the Manager of the factory of Harbanslal Malhotra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. situated at 40, Belur Station Road, Belur Math, Police Station Bally, District: Howrah. It has been alleged by the petitioner that on 28th May, 2003 at about 15.00 hours an accident took place in the factory premises due to mishandling/negligent handling of a drum of degreasing solvent by one of the workers namely Joy Prakash Das. As a result thereof Bhola Sharma (since deceased), Joy Prakash Das and Kashi Nath Porel sustained burn injuries. The said persons were immediately...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »