Kolkata Court July 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.
indo American Electricals Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN744,[2006(109)FLR822],(2006)ILLJ959Cal
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed against purported proceedings initiated by the 'Controlling Authority' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, without having any jurisdiction to initiate the same and also against the purported recovery proceeding initiated by the Certificate Officer against the petitioners for realisation of the amount, so calculated and determined by the said 'Controlling Authority'. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1 is a public limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. As the said Company sustained continuous loss and financial crisis since 1990; so it was referred to BIFR. The production of the Company came to a halt in May, 2000. As such, salary and wages of the employees could be paid only up to June, 2000. So, the management decided to make some ad hoc payments to the employees in lieu of wages and salaries, as a measure to mitigate the hardship. The Company was registered as a sick Com...
Rabindra Nath Mahata Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN337,2005(5)CTC161
Aloke Chakrabarti, J.1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to participate in selection process initiated by the school for recruitment and selection of Clerk-cum-Typist. When writ petition was considered by the learned Single Judge by order dated January 31, 2005, contentions of the respective parties and the subject-matter involved in the writ petition were considered. Notice was taken of the submission of the petitioner that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court dated February 12, 2002 in Abu Taker v. Abdul Wahab and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1203 of 2001) and the decision of this Court by another learned Single Judge in Sanjay Kumar Ray v. State and Ors., reported in : 2005(1)CHN355 , the petitioner had a right to offer his candidature in the selection process in question provided he possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post.2. As the learned Single Judge considering the present writ p...
Suresh Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN206
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. In the present revisional application, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the learned Judge, 1st Special Court, Calcutta in G.R. Case No. 419 of 2001 (arising out of Shakespeare Sarani P.S. Case No. 42 of 2001) under Section 379 IPC read with Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.2. This proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present opposite party No. 2 in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta. As the proceeding was pending in the said Court since 2001 without any progress, the complainant/present opposite party No. 2 preferred an application under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for expeditious disposal of the case. In course of hearing, it was submitted before this Court by the learned Advocate of the opposite party No. 2 (present petitioner) that in view of the provision of the new Electricity Act, 2003, all the offences under the E...
Sudarshan Shaw Vs. Subhas Shaw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN456
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of an applicant under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and is directed against Order No. 22 dated 4th November, 2003 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Act 39 Case No. 103 of 2000 thereby holding that in the absence of death certificate of the deceased the proceedings under Section 372 of the Act was not maintainable unless the applicant gets a declaration as to the death of deceased by filing separate proceedings in a Civil Court.2. The appellant herein filed the aforesaid proceedings under Section 372 of the Act for grant of Succession Certificate for the purpose of receiving the debts and security of one Subhas Shaw, his father, who was last seen on 2nd May, 1993 and was missing from his place of residence at 37D/2, Hari Ghosh Street, Calcutta - 6 from that day.3. In the said application, it was alleged that from 2nd May, 1993 the said Subhas...
Joydeep Majumder Vs. Shanti Kumar Surana and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN167
D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal is preferred against a judgment and order holding that the part of the relief relates to land outside the original side jurisdiction of this Court and granting liberty to the plaintiff to amend the plaint on the basis of the plaintiffs assertion for abandoning the part of the claim. The plaintiff has filed the cross-objection to the appeal filed by the defendant challenging the part of the order relating to absence of jurisdiction passed by the learned Single Judge. Mr. Surajit Mitra, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that once it is held by the Court that the suit is a suit for land outside the original jurisdiction, the Court has no power to allow amendment of the plaint. He relied on the decision in Johra Khatoon v. Janab Mohammad Jane Alam and Ors. AIR 1978 Cal 1978, to support his contention. He also placed reliance on the decision in Manthan Brand Band Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. C.K.T. Communications Pvt. Ltd. : AIR2005Cal317 , and also ...
Sanat Kumar Mullick Vs. Octavious Tea and Industries Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN280
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession on forfeiture of a lease and is directed against the Order No. 86 dated 4th September, 2004 passed by the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1580 of 1996 thereby allowing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by rejecting the plaint. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit thereby praying for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises as described in schedule of the plaint on the basis of a registered deed of lease dated 5th March, 1985 executed by one Manicklal Mullick, since deceased, as lessor and the defendant No. 1 as lessee for 99 years commencing from first day of January, 1962. According to the plaintiff, the original lessor died on 9th June, 1968 thereby bequeathing his properties including the suit premises to his three sons namely, plaintiff and proforma defenda...
Pranab Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Kumkum Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT210(HC),2005(4)CHN146
1. The appellant has filed this application for review of the judgment and decree dated 25* of April, 2003 in FA No. 12 of 2001. Mr. Dasgupta in support of the review application had contended that the Court had overlooked the materials apparent on the face of the record to the extent that the wife had made false and wild disparaging allegations against the spouse, which amounts to cruelty. In support, he relied on Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, 2003(6) SCC 334. He then points out that the learned Court in the judgment had disbelieved the evidence of the appellant/ husband and believed that of the wife on the ground that there was no cross-examination on certain points. Mr. Dasgupta contended that absence of cross-examination does not mean that the evidence was unchallenged. To support this contention, he relied on the decisions in Juwarsingh s/o Bheraji and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1980 (Supp) SCC 417 and P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Office...
Ram Singh Saraf Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN541
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The case of the writ petitioner is that he submitted a Deed of Gift for registration, he being the donor, in the office of the Additional Registrar of Assurances--II, New Secretariat Building, Calcutta. Stamp-duty of Rs. 22,520/-was paid in respect of the said Deed of Gift. In addition to that, the Additional Registrar of Assurances--II before registering the said instrument of transfer, directed that a further stamp-duty to the extent of Rs. 4,57,200/- was to be paid in respect of the said instrument, before final registration. As the petitioner could not pay such a huge amount of stamp-duty, he abandoned the idea of registering the said Deed of Gift and decided not to make any transfer of his property by the said Deed of Gift. Consequently, the petitioner asked for the return of the said unregistered document from the respondent No. 2. But he refused to return the said unregistered instrument and advised the petitioner to file a deed of cancellation in respe...
Pranab Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Smt. Kumkum Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal345
ORDER:12. Accordingly, the application for review succeeds and is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by this Court, sought to be reviewed in this review application, Is hereby set aside. The application for review is, thus, allowed. The appeal is restored to its original file and number and be reheard.FA No. 12 of 200113. By consent of parties, we have reheard the appeal simultaneously with the hearing of the application of review of the judgment and decree. Both the learned Counsel argued the case elaborately and in detail and took us through the materials on record. After having re-heard the appeal by treating the same, by consent of parties as on the list for hearing of the appeal, now we propose to decide the appeal in the manner following.14. Exhibit 10 is the complaint lodged by the wife against the husband before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah being Complaint Case No. 1628 C/1991. In the said complaint, the wife as complainant alleged that the hu...
Magma Leasing Ltd. and ors. Vs. Development Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal80
ORDERSengupta, J.1. This is an application for variation and/or modification of my Order dated 14th March, 2005. The entire judgment and order is not sought to be modified, only the portion thereof which speaks of payment of admitted amount by instalment is sought to be modified.2. Mr. A. K. Chatterjee. learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the application. submits that his client is intremendous hardship to make any arrangement whatsoever for squaring off the dues in terms of my aforesaid order. The initial payment of 50% of admitted dues has not been paid fully within the time. Only a sum of Rs. 10 lacs out of the 50% amount has been paid, not to speak of payment of instalment of the balance 50% with interest. He contends that enough power has been given to the Court under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enlarge the time for making payment. In order to show bona fide his client has already paid a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and further reasonable time should be given t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »