Kolkata Court March 2006 Judgments

Maheswari Brothers Ltd. Vs. Airports Authority of India Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal227

ORDERSengupta, J.1. This application has been taken out by the defendant No. 1 for dismissal of the above suit; alternatively, the suit be permanently stayed and order directing that the above suit does not appear as undefended suit till the disposal of the application. The grounds for dismissal of the suit, as it appears from the petition, is that there exists an arbitration agreement which has been entered into by and between the parties namely, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and furthermore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the Forum Selection Clause contained in the agreement. Going by the provision of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the reliefs sought, no suit can be dismissed under the aforesaid provision namely under Section 8 of the said Act. For convenience sake, Section 8 of the said Act is set out below:8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration...

Smt. Bhabani Bhattacharjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is n judgment and order dated 26thSeptember, 2001 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as (he 'said Tribunal') in Transferred Application (TA) No. 1602 of 1997. By the said judgment and order the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the T.A.2. By filing the T.A. the writ petitioner, who was the applieant before the Tribunal, challenged the promotion given to the respondent No. 5, the private respondent, to the post of Telephone (Operator Grade - I. The Tribunal was, inter-alia, pleased to hold that the writ petitioner was definitely senior to the private respondent No. 5 and the qualifications of the writ petitioner are better. But the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the matter of promotion seniority or better qualification has nothing in connection with promotion to the category of post to which promotion has been given. The Tribunal further came to the conclusion th...

Alan Kaye Vs. Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal158,2006(2)CHN409

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.Re : Maintainability of the Writ Petition1. The validity and/or legality of the notice of demand dated 8th August, 2005 being Annexure 'P-1' to this writ petition, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Initially when this application was taken up for hearing at the motion stage, a preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this writ petition by this Court was raised by Mr. Das Adhikary, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Provident Fund Authorities, viz., the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein, on the ground that since the cause of action for this writ petition arose in Maharashtra and the office of the principal respondent is situated in Maharashtra both of which are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. 3. The said preliminary objection regarding entertainability of this writ petition was overruled by this Court on 10th January, 2006 as this Court found that a subst...

West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Limited and anr. Vs. Anita Roy and ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)CHN111,(2006)IIILLJ393Cal

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and for recovery of money and is directed against the judgment and the decree dated 23rd August, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri in Money Suit No. 2 of 2002 thereby passing a decree for recovery of Rs. 17,84,636.79 p. together with interest to be calculated year by year on the total dues (excepting Provident Fund amount of Rs. 88,528/-) till the date of repayment at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and also a monthly pension amounting to Rs. 2,559/- from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2.2. The plaintiffs-respondents, namely, the widow and the children of one Narayan Chandra Roy, since deceased, filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri, a suit being Money Suit No. 2 of 2002 thereby claiming for the following relief:(i) For a decree for declaration that the charged officer, nam...

Abhijit Dey Vs. Learned West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN476

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This is an application for review of an order dated 20th April, 2004, passed by a Division Bench of this Court by which the said Division Bench disposed of two separate writ applications, being WPST No. 846 of 2003 and WPST No. 1013 of 2003. both filed against the order dated 24th September, 2003 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in ,0. A. No. 3334 of 1999.2. The first of the aforesaid two applications was filed by one Subhro Mukherjee ('Subhro') who was the private-respondent before the learned Tribunal while the other was instituted by one Abhijit Dey ('Abhijit') who was the successful applicant before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administration Tribunals Act, 1985.3. By the order of the Tribunal, the selection of Subhro was quashed at the instance of Abhijit and a direction was given by the Tribunal to the respondents, namely, the David Hare Training Institute to hold fresh selection test for the post of the Clerk-cum-Accountant as ...

Bhagwati Prasad Khaitan and ors. Vs. Turner Morrison and Company Limit ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN1

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff-landlord in a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th December, 1978 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 356 of 1973 thereby dismissing the suit.2. The suit was initially filed on the ground of default in payment of rent but subsequently, by way of amendment, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant-tenant had sublet, assigned and/or transferred the suit premises to M/s. Shalimar Works Limited and/or Lodna Colliery Company (1920) in the year 1966 without the consent of the plaintiff.3. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and as regards the ground of subletting, it was stated that there was no subletting, assignment or transfer of the suit premises as alleged in the plai...

Golap Mustafa Tarafdar and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The seven petitioners in this writ petition are questioning the decision of the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Bishnupur (Bankura) dated December 1, 2005 rejecting their request to open a modified ration shop at Alipur-Bartala of Patrasayer.2. As villagers of the locality, they approached the authorities of the food & supplies department requesting them to open a modified ration shop somewhere in the village so that the villagers might collect their rationed articles without subjecting themselves to the regular harassment of walking around three kilometers for collecting such articles from the dealer running his shop in Betur.3. Alleging inaction on the part of the authorities they moved this Court by filing a writ petition. By order dated November 21, 2005 that writ petition was disposed of directing the competent authority to give a reasoned decision. This is how the impugned decision has come to be given,4. I fully agree with counsel for ...

Asraful Hoda Vs. Arun Sahoo and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(2)CHN448

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from twin applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being C.R.R. No. 1344/95 and C.R.R. No. 1673/95 filed by the petitioners Asraful Hoda and Kamal Kishore Chaddha respectively praying for quashing the proceeding of Case No. C-333/81 under Sections 135A, 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas (South), Alipore.2. O.P. No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas (South), Alipore, inter alia, alleging that one Kamal Kishore Chaddha (petitioner of C.R.R. No. 1673/95) in collusion with his associates Bijoy Kumar Mishra, partner of M/s. Crown Enterprise and Exporting Firm, Nand Kishore Agarwalla, Mangal Chand Bhandari, Asraful Hoda (petitioner of C.R.R. No. 1344/95), Aravinda Chaddha and others hatched up a conspiracy in the early part of 1980 to smuggle out huge quantity of snake skins from India through Road Line Customs Station...

Sanjay Kumar Singhania and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(3)CHN95

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application under Section 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 2799/97 arising out of Hare Street P. S. Case No. 689/97 and for setting aside the order dated 17.03.99 passed by the Id. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta directing investigation in the matter.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that Spark Dealers (P) Ltd. represented by a Director Prem Lal Jain filed a complaint under Section 120B/418/420/465/471 IPC in the Court of Id. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for treating it as an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr. PC inter alia alleging that after voluntary retirement of Directors Sudhakar Rathi and Mohan Kothari, the management of the company went in the hands of accused No. 1 and one K, K. Dhandhania. At the instance of accused No. 1, the company took part in an auction held under the order of this Court for sale of two units of M/s. Ush...

Air Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006(4)CHN701

Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. Heard Mr. Ganguly, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Ghosh, who appears as the learned Counsel for the opposite party/State and Mr. Rakshit, who appears on behalf of the provident fund authority. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that immediately after initiation of the instant case, the petitioners deposited the entire amount, in respect of which the allegation of default in payment of the provident fund amount was made. Mr. Ganguly has referred to copies of challans in support of his contention that such deposits were duly made. Mr. Rakshit on behalf of the provident fund authority accepts cash such payment that was duly made. In fact after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, it appears that an amount of more than Rs. 80,000/- was deposited-of course, subsequent to filing of the case. Question may naturally arise as to whether there is any justification for continuation of the instant proceeding in the changed circumsta...