Kolkata Court September 2006 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.
State Bank of India Vs. Elbird Hatchery (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC156
1. The matter relates to an appeal from an interlocutory order. It all started by a suit by the appellant-Bank way back in 1998 for realisation of the loan dues to the tune of Rs. 1,16,74,310.61 with interest against the respondent, Elbird Hatchery (P.) Ltd. It culminated in the final order being passed by the Tribunal below on 23rd March, 2003. The outstanding amount due as stood on 31st May, 2003 was Rs. 2,07,81,872/-.2. Recovery proceeding started in R.P. No. 74 of 2003. Recovery Officer directed to deposit of Rs. 32 lakh by 30th June, 2004. The deposit was not made resulting in issuance of warrant arrest against the respondents. The respondents instead of filing appeal filed review application before the DRT which was entertained by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 5656 of 2003 by order dated 10th July, 2003 granted liberty to file appeal within one month. The respondent did not file the appeal and the final order passed on 21st March, 2003 beca...
Punam Wang Khem Sing Bhatia Vs. Manipur Industrial Development
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC152
1. The matter relates to an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal and an application under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993.2. Let us take up the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.3. The impugned order is dated 17th February, 2004 by DRT, Guwahati, and the appeal was filed on 16th November, 2005.4. Apparently, there has been a long delay in filing this appeal by the appellant, Mrs. Punam Wang Khem Singh Bhatia. (b) The appellant came to know of the entire proceeding of the case and the impugned judgment and order only in the middle of October, 2005 and she obtained certified copy on 18th October, 2005. (c) Her husband is in the army and her brothers who are contesting the proceeding as parties thereto did not inform her the same. (d) She did not even know that she was a party to the proceedings or the case, no notice was served upon her by the Tribunal. (e) In addition to that, her brother in writing i...
Hydrocarbons and Chemicals Vs. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC431(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Appellant set up a small-scale industrial unit after being registered with the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries. The appellant was engaged in the manufacturing of sodium petroleum sulphonate (hereinafter referred to as 'SPS'). According to the appellant, SPS was a chemical component which was commonly known as detergent other than soap. The State Government provided for incentive to the small-scale detergent manufacturers under the West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance to Industrial Unit) Scheme, 1994 by which the sales tax collected out of sale of detergent to a substantial extent was to be paid back to the manufacturer as and by way of subsidy and/or incentive. Accordingly, the petitioner claimed subsidy, which was not extended to the petitioner by the concerned authority. The petitioner moved a writ petition being W. P. No. 717 of 2000 when the learned single Judge directed the authority to consider his representation and dispose of...
Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway Vs. Kalighat Railway Plot- ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN771
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against order dated 10th August, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed a writ application filed by the respondents and directed the appellant, the railway authority, to issue fresh demand notice for the purpose of realisation of the licence-fees involved therein and to determine the licence-fees in terms of the circular dated August 29, 1995 being Annexure 'X' to the affidavit-in-opposition subject to the condition that enhancement of the licence-fees should be made once in five years and not in every year.2. Being dissatisfied, the railway authority has come up with the present mandamus appeal and at the same time, the writ petitioners have also filed a cross-objection alleging that the learned Single Judge ought to have held that the licence-fees could not be claimed at the enhanced rate with retrospective effect from an earlier date.3. ...
industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Badrinarayan All ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN336
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal was heard along with a separate writ application filed by the appellant by which they challenged the order dated 24th April, 2006 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('AAIFR') in Appeal No. 146 of 2005 thereby modifying the scheme framed by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ('BIFR') to a little extent.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the two writ application, one by the respondent No. 1 herein and the other, by the appellant may be epitomised thus?'(1) The respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the sick company) filed a reference before the BIFR which was registered as Case No. 170 of 2000. The BIFR vide its order dated 8th June, 2001 declared the respondent No. 1 as a sick company in terms of Section 3(1)(c) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the SICA) and appointed the appellant herein as the operating ...
Encon Private Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN467
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of a writ petitioner and is directed against the order dated 21st July, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship refused to extend the interim order earlier granted while entertaining the writ application.2. After filing of the appeal, the appellant before us filed an application for mandatory-injunction directing the respondent No. 6 to restore and reinstall all the hoardings of the appellant-petitioner which were allegedly dismantled by the said respondent during the pendency of the writ application and alternatively, to allow the appellant to reinstall those hoardings and to grant an order of stay of the notice impugned in the writ application.3. We have heard out the application for mandatory-injunction along with appeal itself.4. The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be summarized thus:(a) The writ petitioner claiming to be an advertising company has preferred the said writ ap...
Howrah Mills Company Limited and anr. Vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN248
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. For revival of the petitioner No. 1 which is a sick company, the surplus land belonging to the petitioner No. 1 measuring about 5,326 sq. mt. at premises No. 160 G.T. Road (South), Shibpur, Howrah was permitted to be transferred to the highest bidder M/s. Vedant Traders Pvt. Ltd. at a price of Rs. 458 lakh in a proceeding under BIFR as per the recommendation of the Assets Sale Committee.2. The land which is proposed to be sold to the said highest bidder has already been earmarked.3. When the petitioners took step to construct a boundary wall around the land proposed to be sold, the petitioner was obstructed and as a result the petitioner had to file a writ petition before this Court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State and the police authorities to give necessary police protection, so that the petitioners can raise boundary wall around the land proposed to be sold. The said litigation went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court giving rise to...
Dtm Construction Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN254
Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. This instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated June 2, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Kolkata in T.A. No. 03 of 2005, whereby the applicant had been granted liberty to proceed with the Securitisation Act of 2002 for the enforcement of its security interest against all the defendants.2. In moving the revisional application, Mr. D. Basak, learned Counsel, has submitted that in disposing of the application ex parte without serving notice upon the petitioner, the Tribunal flouted principle of natural justice. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal is, thus, liable to be set aside in revision.3. Contending that the ex parte order had been passed in haste, Mr. Basak has contended that in view of the provision contained in the proviso to Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Banks or the Financial Institutions are required to elect...
Brahma Pandey @ B. Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-2006
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR524]
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. The writ petition relates to challenge of charge-sheet, inquiry proceeding and a command order directing the petitioner to join the inquiry. Facts in brief are inter alia as follows:The petitioner is a Constable in the Railway Protection Force of C & TE/ Undal under Asansol Division, Eastern Railway. The petitioner was charge sheeted and the charges are;Gross misconduct and negligence of duty and it was clarified as:When he was working at RPF/TM-Post/Chh/CRJ he was spared to avail one day rest, two days CR, one day CPL and four days CL w.e.f 19.8.1995 to 26.8.1995 and was supposed to resume his duty on 27.8.1995 but instead of joining his duty he overstayed w.e.f. 27.8.1995 to 11.3.1997 without any authority and proper intimation.Further when working at C & TE/OP/UdI he was spared for 30 days LAP on 24.4.1998 and was supposed to join his duty on 24.5.1998 but he overstayed till 31.7.1998.2. Accordingly, the petitioner is a habitual absentee or habitual offender r...
Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. Vs. First Industrial Tribunal of West Benga ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN860,[2007(112)FLR787],(2007)IILLJ81Cal
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.1. The petitioner company files this writ application challenging the award dated July 4, 1995 passed by the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and published by the Government as per Order No. 1663-I.R. dated August 7, 1995.2. The respondent No. 3 was a clerk in the Tea Export Division Godown of the petitioner company. He was appointed by the respondent company in the above post on September 11, 1986. His service was terminated by the respondent on June 4, 1988. The respondent No. 3 approached the State Government for settling his dispute. Ultimately, the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department by an order dated March 16, 1991 referred the dispute to the respondent No. 1, i.e. the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal under Section 10 read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the following issue:Whether the termination of service of respondent No. 3 was justified? To what relief, if any, is he entitled? 3. The stand ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »