Kolkata Court February 2007 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.
Arun Kr. Das Vs. Anuka Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN231
1. This is an application for substitution filed under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present Chairman and the present Secretary of the Governing Body of the City College, Amherst Street, Kolkata. The present Chairman is Supriyo Basu; the present Secretary is Bikash Chandra Saha.2. After hearing Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the appellants, Mr. Saha Roy, learned Advocate for the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and Mr. Basu, learned Advocate for the defendant/respondent No. 2, we allow this application and direct substitution of the present Chairman, namely, Supriyo Basu and the present Secretary, namely, Bikash Chandra Saha, as described in paragraph 5 of this substitution application, as appellants instead and in place of the present appellants.3. The application for substitution is, thus, allowed.4. The office is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal,5. We make no order as to costs.6. By consent of the parties,...
Pradip Kumar Banerjee Vs. Airport Authority of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)3CALLT101(HC)
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Assailing the decision of Appellate Authority as communicated by letter No. Pers./IR/1102/4/91/PB/Pt/657 dated 24th March, 2005 of Dr. T.S. Shaikh, General Manager (Pers.), whereby and whereunder said Appellate Authority under Airport Authority of India Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1987, hereinafter referred to as said Regulation, after acquittal of the writ petitioner on merit in the criminal appeal by the Judgment passed by P.K. Biswas, J. (as His Lordship then was) in C.R.A. No. 393 of 1999 of the High Court at Calcutta, directed initiation of departmental proceeding with reference to the alleged incident, which was the subject matter of the criminal prosecution ended in acquittal by the Judgment of the High Court, Calcutta along with order of suspension de novo with effect from 13th July, 2000, initially, the petitioner prayed the following reliefs in the writ application being prayers (a) to (e), which reads as follows:a) A writ in...
Neelam Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC40
1. The matter relates to an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('the RDDBFI Act', for short).2. The appellant No. 1 is a company of flour mills and appellant No. 2 is its Managing Director who borrowed money from the respondent-Bank by deposit of title deeds in respect of immovable properties situated at Malda. The business failed due to reasons beyond their control and the company closed down. The appellants wanted the respondent-Bank to sell the secured properties for liquidating the claim.3. Proceedings for recovery of debt in Original Application No. 29 of 2004 before the D.R.T. ensued. That still pendsan admitted fact.4. However, sale of the secured properties to liquidate the loan was underway and in August, 2005, the Tribunal proceeded to confirm sale of the assets in favour of Sarada Cereals Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No. 2) for a sum of Rs.'71.51 lacs in spite of an offer of Rs. 80 lacs being available before the...
Dr. Bhatindra Nath Mukhopadhyay Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Cal116,(2007)2CALLT457(HC)
ORDERSoumitra Pal, J.1. This is a writ application challenging the order passed by the Chief Municipal Health Officer, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 2 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to record the date of birth by giving effect to the order passed by the learned 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata in Misc. Case No. 225 of 2005 on 11th August, 2005. In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of the order impugned which is as under:Now it appears that the petitioner Dr. Bratindra Nath Mukhopadhyay has applied for issuance of his birth certificate in his favour after lapse of about sixty one years from the date of his birth, as alleged. But during the long span of 61 years no efforts have been taken to cause recording of his alleged date of birth in the Register of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. During the hearing the representative of the petitioner was asked to produce a Xerox copy of the physician's certificate relating...
Md. MohibuddIn Vs. Jame Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN645
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court, Asansol in T.S. No. 1/99 allowing the prayer of the plaintiff/O.P. for amendment, the defendant/petitioner has come up before this Court in revision.2. The plaintiff/O.P. instituted the said suit for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction contending that he is the owner of 'A' schedule property where he has been residing since the time of his predecessor by making a pucca boundary wall leaving vacant space on all sides as per municipal rules. The land of the defendant/petitioner is located towards the northern side, and apart from the plaintiffs left out space, there is a vacant land of about 4 ft. x 5 ft., described in schedule 'B', being used by the plaintiff openly and peacefully as his passage for ingress and egress since the time of his predecessor and thus he has acquired title there to by adverse possession. All on a sudden on 31.10.98 ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Krishna Deo Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)2CALLT654(HC)
1. The order passed by the learned Tribunal impugned in this Judgment was as against the BSNL authorities, which is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal. The BSNL was formed in 2000, whereas the order was passed by the learned Tribunal in 2003. The plea of jurisdiction was gone into by the learned Tribunal, wherein the learned Tribunal found that since the cause of action arose prior to 2000, the application was held to be maintainable before the learned Tribunal.2. The learned Tribunal was right as we find that the original application was filed in 1996 when the delinquent was serving through the department of Telecommunication. Hence, the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the said application. However, in 2000 when the BSNL authorities had come into effect, the learned Tribunal should have transmitted the record to this Court for consideration.3. The order impugned dated June 19, 2003 is set aside. O.A. No. 156 of 1996 be transferred to...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Himala Rani Malick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: (2007)3CALLT29(HC)
1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of Union of India, the employer and is directed against order dated 31st August, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 863 of 2005 thereby allowing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, filed by the private respondent.2. The following facts are not in dispute.The predecessor-in-interest of the applicants before tribunal was an employee of the railway and was admitted in B.R. Singh Hospital as indoor patient and was missing from the said hospital on and from 21st May, 1997.The missing employee could not be traced and ultimately in the year 2001 the employer decided to release the settled dues to the heirs of the original employee. The wife of the employee prayed for compassionate appointment of her son the applicant No. 2; but the Railway authority by letter dated 16th February, 2001 informed the applicant No. 1 that the compete...
In Re: Raghunath Exports Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2007
Reported in: [2008]83SCL68(Cal)
ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. A much-answered question falls for consideration once again.2. The Company resists an Order of admission sought on a creditor's winding up petition not only on the basis of the dispute it claims it has raised but also on the propriety of the Company Court in inquiring into the merits of the dispute as a suit founded on such dispute has been instituted by the Company. It is irrelevant, according to the Company, whether the suit was instituted before or after receipt of the statutory notice; that a suit is pending and that the same is not demurrable is enough to ward off winding up proceedings against the Company touching upon such matters.3. The petitioner was the carrier of goods shipped by the Company. The goods were to be partly carried by sea and partly by road. They were to be discharged by the vessel at Felixstowe in the United Kingdom and carried by road to Speke in containers. According to the petitioner, upon the cargo being discharged at Felixstowe, ...
Hind Spectron Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Uco Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN223,(2007)3CompLJ450(Cal)
Dipankar Datta, J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is to a sale notice issued by the respondent bank dated 3.11.06, in pursuance of an action taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the Act).2. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to receipt of a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 28.11.05, the petitioners had given certain proposals for restructuring of the accounts and/or revision of the credit facilities by letters dated 1.1.05 and 24.1.05 but on both occasions, the proposals were turned down by the respondent Bank by its letters dated 3.12.05 and 30.1.06 without furnishing any reason and by recording that the proposals were not acceptable to it. He submits that by these two letters, the Bank conveyed only the 'conclusion' and not the reasons leading to such 'conclusion'. He further submits that in terms of Section 13(3A) of th...
Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Ocl Investments and Leasing Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-2007
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas83(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Three points had been urged in the company's affidavit. The first of them has been given up in the course of submission.2. Of the two points which have been pressed in resisting an order of admission on this winding up petition, the first is that the writing on which the petitioner's claim is founded and the endorsement thereon allegedly made on behalf of the company did not constitute a promise to pay within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, 1872 and since such writing was admittedly executed after the original debt was barred by limitation, the acknowledgment would not save limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The other, if slightly more feeble, ground urged was that the accountant who appears to have admitted and acknowledged on behalf of the company, had no authority to do so.3. The letter that has been relied upon is one addressed by the petitioner to the company on September 28, 2004. The petitioner requested the company t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »