Kolkata Court February 2006 Judgments
D.P. Ghosal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ327CAT
1. 7 (seven) applicants, who are working as O/S Grade I in the Office of CCM/Claims, S.E. Railway, Calcutta, have jointly filed this application challenging the selection process initiated by the respondents for filling up ten newly created posts of Chief Office Superintendent.2. The applicants belong to unreserved community and at the relevant time they were working as O/S Grade I under the respondents. By a Railway Board letter dated 10.5.98 by way of restructuring, 10 posts of Chief Office Superintendent in scale of Rs. 7450-11500 have been created in Claims Section of CCS Office of S.E. Railway, Calcutta with effect from 10.5.98. The applicants were hopeful to get promotions in the aforesaid higher posts, but to their utter dismay they found that the respondent authorities have called ten persons, who are private respondents in this OA, (all of whom belong to reserved category), in the selection process. The applicants contend that without disclosing the break-up of the vacancies ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN178
Pratap Kr. Ray, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, only question has been raised that once any document is admitted in evidence and marked as 'exhibit', subsequently such order whether could be recalled for impounding the instrument in absence of the payment of proper stamp-duty. By the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2005 of this application passed by learned 2nd Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat in Title Suit No. 4 of 1999, learned Trial Court refused to recall the order dated 17th February, 2003, as per prayer of defendant-petitioner thereto for impounding the agreement, which was exhibited and marked dispensing with formal proof of document.3. It is the case of the petitioner that as the concerned document being an instrument was not properly stamped, the same was inadmissible in evidence and as such prayer to recall the order dated 17th February, 2003 whereby and where under the con...
Tag this Judgment!Goutam Das Vs. Nirbhoy Chandra Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN600
Pratap Kr. Ray, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed on assailing the order dated 16th September, 2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalpaiguri in Misc. (Pre-emption) Case No. 34 of 2004 whereby and whereunder application praying injunction to restrain the respondents from executing any sale deed was refused. This pre-emption application was filed by the petitioner admittedly at the pre-matured stage, namely, when the registration of the document was not at all completed in terms of Section 61 of the Registration Act, which provides that registration would be completed on fulfilment of all the formalities in terms of the said Act. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Ram Saran Lall and Ors. v. Mst. Domini Kuer and Ors. reported in : [1962]2SCR474 and Hiralal Aggarwal v. Rampadarath Singh reported in : [1969]1SCR328 .3. Right of pre-emption is a statu...
Tag this Judgment!Maheshwari Brothers Ltd. Vs. National Highways Authority of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR64(Cal),(2006)3CALLT154(HC)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. Both the review applications are directed against Judgments and Orders dated 13th July, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in connection with two proceedings under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Questions of fact and law being similar in both the cases, both were disposed of by a common Judgment by the Division Bench.2. The relevant facts of this case are that the parties entered into a contract for short-term improvement and routine maintenance of National Highway No. 2 between Barwa Adda to Panagarh (Km. 398.750 to Km. 512.00) on the basis of a composite contract. The said contract was arrived at on the basis of quotation submitted by Maheshwari Brothers Ltd., the petitioner herein in response to a tender enquiry floated by National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the NHAI). It is asserted by the petitioner that initially when quotations were submitted, NHAI found that two items namely Bituminous Concrete and...
Tag this Judgment!Allergan Inc Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT272(HC),2006(2)CHN179,2006(32)PTC495(Cal)
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This is a suit for permanent injunction praying for restraining the defendant from their attempting to pass off their Pharmaceuticals preparation being Ophthalmic solution as that of the plaintiff by use on or in connection therewith in course of trade, the mark 'OCUFLOX' or any other deceptively and/or confusingly similar mark and also for further necessary action against the defendant.2. Plaintiffs case is that it is a leading manufacturer of well-known pharmaceutical products with extensive operations in several major countries of the world. It is carrying on its business worldwide since 1960. One of the well-known pharmaceutical products of the plaintiff is an ophthalmic preparation known as 'OCUFLOX' used for treatment of certain types of eye infections. Said mark was coined and adopted by the plaintiff in or about September, 1992. By virtue of subsequent prolonged and extensive use, said mark 'OCUFLOX' has become distinctive of the plaintiff in the eyes o...
Tag this Judgment!Pabitra Kumar Dutta and ors. Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railway and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Cal157
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The fifteen petitioners in this writ petition (the fifteenth petitioner is an association) question the similar orders of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah dated May 5th, 2005.2. One of the orders reads as follows :Open Tender of cycle stand at Jaugram station.You were awarded the contract of running a cycle stand at Jaugram station in the year 1987 for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 1-3-1987 and the License fee was fixed @ Rs. 206/- per month. The period of contract has expired on 28-2-1990.However, you were allowed to run the said cycle stand after expiry of the said contractual period. The Railway Administration now have decided not to allow you to run the said cycle stand beyond 30th June, 2005 and you are advised to vacate the said cycle stand w.e.f. 1st July 2005.In the meantime open tender is going to be floated for licensing of cycle stand contract at Jaugram station and if you are interested, you can participate in th...
Tag this Judgment!East India Commercial Co. (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN607
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of BSNL dated November 7th, 2003, relevant portion whereof is:Considering the notice served vice letter No. AOTR/CT- 111/OS/Review 07-08-2003 as per CDF decision as above and due to non-payment of outstanding due of Rs. 1,56,552 :00 till date and your letter no. RB/1173 dt.07.10.2003. You are once again requested to pay the outstanding dues by 15.11.2003 failing which your other Tele Nos. 2243-6337 & 2243-5620 will be disconnected and other departmental action as well as legal action as well as legal action will be initiated against you without further notice. 2. The respondents have filed an opposition affirmed long ago. Advocate for the petitioners prays for an opportunity of filing reply. He says that the reply was not prepared, since the opposition was served long after the due date. I do not find any reason to adjourn the hearing of the matter. It seems to me that the writ petition can be decided even wi...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar Narayan Das Vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)101ITD95Cal
1. All these appeals preferred by the different assessees are directed against the common order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-XL, Kolkata dated 27^th May, 2005 in the cases of these five appellants for the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04.2. Since common facts and grounds are involved in all the five abovementioned appeals viz. I.T.A. Nos. 1837, 1838, 1839, 1850 & 1851/Kol./2005 filed by the different assessees, we, therefore, decide to dispose of the same by a common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.3. The assessees have preferred the following common grounds before us in case of ail five appeals: (i) For that the ld. CIT(A)-XL, Kolkata without considering the provisions of law and submissions made before him by the appellant, has confirmed the order of the A.O. which is not justice and lawful. (ii) For that the ld. CIT(A)-XL, Kolkata has confirmed the order passed by the ld. A.O. in respect of the determination of residential status accepting a controversial and subj...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Baran Chowdhury Vs. Anath Bandhu Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN294
Aniruddha Bose, J.1. In this suit, a preliminary point has been taken on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1,3 and 4 as regards maintainability of the suit. Originally Mr. Deb, the learned Counsel for the said defendants had raised this preliminary point under the principle of Demurrer. But subsequently argument was advanced beyond this point, but on the issue of maintainability only. The primary arguments advanced by Mr. Deb in contesting the maintainability of the suit on the ground that this suit was in effect for partial partition, and hence not permissible under the law.2. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on 21st January, 1986 claiming inter alia, partition of a premises being numbered 9, Boys Own Library Row, as well as certain movable properties. The reliefs claimed in the suit included accounts for recovery of sums alleged to be due to the plaintiff in respect of the said premises, and in respect of two firms being run under the name and style of M/s. Chowdhury Printer and ...
Tag this Judgment!Control Print (India) Limited Vs. Sanjay Sribastab and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT145(HC),2006(4)CHN674
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and recovery of damages and is directed against order No. 10 dated 29th October, 2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 7th Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 164 of 2005 thereby dismissing an application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff on the ground that it had failed to prove a prima facie case to go for trial and at the same time, the balance of convenience and inconvenience was also in favour of refusing the prayer for temporary injunction.2. The appellants herein filed the aforesaid suit thereby claiming the following relief:a) For injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and assigns from acting in breach of the negative covenants contained in the service contract more fully set out in paragraph 12 and 13 hereinafter:b) Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and assigns f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »