Kolkata Court May 2006 Judgments
Nilkanta Mondal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ2287,AIR2006Cal247,(2007)1CALLT131(HC)
ORDERGirish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The petitioner's case is that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') failed neglected and/or refused to pay the claim arising out of the risk covered by the Corporation concerning life of the petitioner's deceased wife Shrimati Chhaya Mondal. The writ petitioner as such has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Corporation to pay the sum assured amounting to Rs. 75,000/- together with compound interest. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:2. Shrimati Chhaya Mondal took out a Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 420094448 with effect from 2nd October 1987 for a sum of Rs. 37,500/ . She took out another policy bearing No. 420094449 with effect from 28th October 1987 for an identical sum of Rs. 37,500/-. The writ petitioner was the nominee. The life assured expired on 30th November, 1988. A claim was naturally made by the writ petitioner which the Corporation failed neglected a...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rajak Mallick and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN733
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present appellants, as petitioners, filed an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs over the accidental death of their son, a khalashi (helper) of Matador Van being No. WB 41/0316.2. The victim was a young boy of 25 years and had an income of Rs. 1500/-per month. Such accident took place on 21.6.1996. -3. On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 16.1.1999 passed by the learned Tribunal it appears that in absence of satisfactory proof in support of the claim regarding income of Rs. 1500/- per month of the victim, the Tribunal decided to proceed on 'guess work'. No proper reason could be assigned as to why the income would be taken as Rs. 900/- per month only. Then, again, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the fact that the mother of the victim was 54 years of age. The learned Tribunal appeared to have been largely guided by the fact that 'dependents of the victim may not live upto the estimated re...
Tag this Judgment!Priyambada Debi Birla (Deceased by Lr) Vs. Ajoy Kumar Newar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Cal259
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. First mentioned application being G.A. No. 4375 of 2004 has been taken out by one Radha Debi Mohatta being the defendant No. 2 while application being G.A. No. 4376 of 2004 was originally taken out by one Laxmi Debi Newar since deceased being the original defendant No. 1. On her death intestacy, one Ajoy Kumar Newar, one Arabinda Kumar Newar, one Nanda Gopal Khaitan and one Debendra Kumar Mahatri Defendant No. 1(a), Defendant No. 1(b), Defendant No. 1(c) and Defendant No. 1(d) respectively were substituted in her place and stead. These two applications have been taken out by the aforesaid defendants for identical reliefs for appointment of an Administrator and/or a Committee headed by an independent and impartial Administrator to take over all movable and immovable assets and properties of the deceased, Smt. Priyambada Debi Birla including the voting rights and the right of control of the deceased in respect of the companies specified in schedule being ...
Tag this Judgment!Medicamen Biotech Limited and anr. Vs. Rubina Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN727
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. Petitioners by filing an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code prayed for quashing of the proceeding of the Case No. C-1501 of 2002 under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, Kolkata. This is further directed against order dated 02.07.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, Kolkata, whereby learned Court took cognizance of the alleged offences and directed issuance of process against the petitioners.2. Grievances of the petitioners, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows:Petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with it registered office at S.P. 1192A & B, Phase-IV, Bhiwadi Industrial Area, District-Alwar (Rajasthan) and corporate office in Delhi. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of various pharmaceutical formulations. Petitioner No. 1 is its Managing Director....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Priyambada Debi Birla (Deceased)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: (2006)3CALLT547(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. First mentioned application being G.A. No. 4375 of 2004 has been taken out by one Radha Debi Mohatta being the defendant No. 2 while application being G.A. No. 4376 of 2004 was originally taken out by one Laxmi Debi Newar since deceased being the original defendant No. 1. On her death inteastacy, one Ajoy Kumar Newar, one Arabinda Kumar Newar, one Nanda Gopal Khaitan and one Debendra Kumar Mahatri Defendant No. 1(a), Defendant No. l(b), Defendant No. l(c) and Defendant No. l(d) respectively were substituted in her place and stead. These two applications have been taken out by the aforesaid defendants for identical reliefs for appointment of an Administrator and/or a Committee headed by an independent and impartial Administrator to take over all movable and immovable assets and properties of the deceased, Smt. Priyambada Debi Birla including the voting rights and the right of control of the deceased in respect of the companies specified in schedule being anne...
Tag this Judgment!Prasanta Kumar Pal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-19-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN291
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing arises from an application under Section 401 read with Sections 397 and 482 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 16.9.2002 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, in Misc. Case No. 160/2000 under Section 133 Cr. PC.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that on the complaint of O.P. No. 2 Ratikanta Pal an employee of B.D.O., Bagnan-II to his employer to exert Government power, inter alia, alleging that despite his objection, the petitioners are forcibly constructing a well on Plot No. 1318 comprising of 18 dec. land for the purpose of privy and bathroom which will cause nuisance to the water of the tank used for bathing, cooking and drinking, the B.D.O. held an enquiry through Sanitary Inspector, Bagnan-II, who without any notice to the petitioners and without holding any spot enquiry submitted a false report. B.D.O. pursued the matter to S.D.O. and upto Minister le...
Tag this Judgment!Three-n-products Private Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limit ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN733,2007(34)PTC515(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above motion has been taken out by the plaintiff in a suit for infringement and passing off, for the interlocutory relief in the form of injunction restraining the respondents and/or their servants and/or agents and/or assignees and each of them or otherwise howsoever from using the mark 'Ayur Care' or infringing the registered trade mark adopted by the petitioner or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the petitioner's registered mark 'Ayur' and prefixing or suffixing the word 'Ayur' in any other words.2. Similar injunction has been asked for from passing off or attempting to pass off the products manufactured by them by using the name 'Ayur' or any other name deceptively similar to 'Ayur' namely 'Ayur Care'.3. The case of the petitioner is that the plaintiff/petitioner was incorporated on 4th December, 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and since then it has been carrying on business in manufacturing and selling of various kind...
Tag this Judgment!Statesman Limited Vs. Second Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN229
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 10th March, 2003 passed by this Hon'ble First Court whereby His Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition challenging an award by the learned Tribunal.2. Facts of the case briefly are as follows:On 8th March, 1984 a printing machine was stopped while printing the dak edition of the 'Statesman' at about 4.20 p.m. Respondent No. 3 herein, an electrician, on being asked to rectify the fault, refused to do so since he was to get off the work at 5.00 p.m. A chargesheet was drawn on such misconduct against the respondent No. 3 on 10th March, 1984, service whereof stated to be avoided by the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, on 11th February, 1985, he was dismissed from service of the company. An industrial dispute was raised by him and subsequent thereto, the matter was referred before the Second Industrial Tribunal by the respondent No. 3 (the workman) under Section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (her...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Tiles Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN799
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is arising out of an order passed by the Hon'ble First Court dated August 17, 2004 whereby His Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and further held that the writ petitioner is liable to pay additional duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. His Lordship further held that the writ petitioner could not produce any law before His Lordship wherefrom he can get an exemption of additional duty.2. The appellant/writ petitioner challenged the said order on the ground that the Hon'ble First Court failed to appreciate that the appellant is exempted from making payment of basic customs duty under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 in view of the free trade agreement entered into by and between India and Sri Lanka executed on December 28, 1998 read together with notification No. 26 dated March 1, 2000 issued under Section 26(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Customs authorities have imposed additional customs duty under Section 3 of the Cu...
Tag this Judgment!Kamini Ferrous Limited Vs. Neelam International Pte. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Cal244
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 7th March, 2006 passed by the Hon'ble First Court refusing an order of injunction restraining the bank from making any payment under Letters of Credit dated 23rd November, 2004 and 29th November, 2004 and also was pleased to refuse the restraint order against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from demanding payment under the said Letters of Credit. The suit was filed against the defendants for a decree for perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, their servants, men, agents and assigns from making any payment under the said Letters of Credit; the suit was filed against the defendants for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and each of them, their servants from in any way or the manner obtaining and/or seeking to obtain payment under the said Letters of Credit; a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from debiting the plaintiff's account for any amount in excess of Rs. 23.40...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »