Kolkata Court August 2007 Judgments
M. Murugeshan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN759
1. It is matter of regret that the Stamp Reporter of this Court has not taken any objection as to the classification of the appeal.2. We are of the opinion that the appeal has not been properly classified.3. Under Section 9A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 (the said Act in short) any person aggrieved by an award of the Arbitrator made under Section 9B(1)(c) of the said Act may, within thirty days from the date of such award, prefer an appeal to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the aerodrome is situate. However the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if the High Court is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.Section 9A of the said Act recognises the powers of the Central Government to prohibit or regulate construction of buildings, planting of trees etc. if the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for the safety of aircraft operations.Se...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Smt. Sheela Rani Soam
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT15(HC),2008(1)CHN264
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. The petitioner claims that she is the widow of one Late Nikhil Chandra Soam, who died on 10th April, 1988 while in service in the army. She claims to be a non-matric having passed only Class-VIII examination from a local school. She claimed that she had two sons, viz., Ranu Soam and Bapi Soam respectively.2. After the death of her husband on 10th April, 1988 she applied to the Zilla Sainik Board, Government of West Bengal for appointment in a suitable Group 'D' post. She based her claim on the instructions issued by the Union of India dated 28th November, 1990. The application made by the petitioner was duly received by the authorities. However, no action was taken. Therefore, she made an application to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Cell in Delhi on 25th November, 1991 on the basis of the scheme known as 'Employment Assistance to the Relatives of Government Servant died while in Service'. She claimed that she had none to help her...
Tag this Judgment!Monoj Roy Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN671
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 39/ 1993 [S.T. No. 2 of February, 1995] on 10.3.1995.2. The miniaturised version of the prosecution is that on 8.9.91 at about 3.00 p.m. when the de facto complainant Kartick Roy (PW. 1) was catching fish nearby his house from a tank named 'Nolo Pukur', accused Parimal Saha, who took lease of the said tank for making pisciculture, along with accused Monoj Roy and three others suddenly appeared there and caught hold him. While his elder brother Biswanath Roy came to his rescue they leaving the complainant caught hold him resulting in a scuffle between them. The complainant reported the matter to his house and a few neighbourers. Anjali Roy (PW.2) rushed to the P.O. for saving her husband Biswanath. Accused Monoj struck Biswanath with a knife on his left hand and left side of his b...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Mukherjee Vs. Sankar Prasad Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN968
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise an order by which a stranger to the contract which she seeks to specifically enforce has been impleaded as a party. The petitioner suggests that as do minus litis it is her prerogative both to choose her defendants and to limit the scope of the adjudication in the suit.2. The two key aspects that found favour with the Court below need to be noticed from the impugned order:.the petitioner [the applicant in the Order 1 Rule 10(2) application! had purchased (a) part of the schedule property in the year 2002 and 2004 and entered into an agreement for purchase of the schedule property by agreement dt. 19.11.02 with the defendant Nos. 1, 2, and others....I also hold my view that in a suit for specific performance by a purchaser, another purchaser of the same property is a necessary party.3. On appreciating the fact as first quoted, the Court below came to the conclusion next quoted above, though the wording of the legal proposition may hav...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Uco Bank Vs. Samar Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Cal9,(2007)3CALLT362(HC),2008(2)CHN36
ORDERJyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 19 dated 19th September, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 205 of 2004 by which the application of the defendant No. 3/petitioner for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.2. The plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 filed a suit for declaration of his tenancy right under the defendant/opposite party No. 2 herein. A further declaration was also sought for against the said defendant for declaring that he cannot be evicted without due process of law. So far as the petitioner, as well as the opposite party No. 3 herein are concerned, the following relief was claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint:The respondent No. 2 or 3 or their agents and officers be restrained from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the scheduled f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Weighbird (India) Limited (In Liquidation); in Re: Titagarh Ind ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN279,[2009]147CompCas366(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. In the main application, CA No. 333 of 2006, the applicant asserts a right in the nature of pre-emption. In the more recent application, CA No. 623 of 2007 of 2007, the vendor in whose agreement the right is found has sought to be impleaded as an applicant in CA No. 333 of 2006. The original applicant and the later applicant are under the same management and there appears to be no conflict of interest between the two.2. By an indenture of October 30, 1963, Titagarh Paper Mills Company Limited sold a piece of land to George Salter India Limited. The recital to the agreement identified Titagarh Paper Mills Company Limited as the vendor company and specified that such expression was to include its successors. George Salter India Limited was referred to in the agreement as the purchaser company which expression was to include its successors and assigns. It is not in dispute that the purchaser company later came to be known as Weighbird India Limited, a company subsequ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshab Narayan Banerjee Vs. Srijit Dutta Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN996
1. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:(a) Leave be given to the petitioner to make this application.(b) An order be passed directing the State Bank of India, Rash Behari Avenue Branch to renew 20 fixed deposit receipts particular thereof are set out in table 'C' annexed hereto cumulatively for the periods form 1991 till 2002 as it had done for the periods from 2002 to 2005 as shown in the table 'C annexed hereto.(c) Order be passed against State Bank of India, Grey Street Extension Branch regarding 12 fixed deposit receipts details whereof are set out in table 'G' annexed hereto directing the said branch to renew all the fixed deposit receipts on a cumulative basis till March 18, 2005 as shown in the table marked 'G'.(d) Order to be passed directing the Branch Manager of Grey Street Extension Branch of State Bank of India to renew the said fixed deposits on quarterly payable interest basis in terms of the order dated 18th March, 2005 passed by the H...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Kumar Agarwalla Vs. Sreelall Foreign Money Changers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Reported in: [2008]88SCL246(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioners seek winding up of the company on just and equitable grounds, citing complete deadlock in both the pre-dispute shareholding and directorial position in the company. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner and the second respondent are entitled to equal shareholding and say in the management of the company and upon such persons, brothers, having irreconcilably fallen out, the partnership firm run in the guise of the limited liability company needs to be dissolved.2. The company was incorporated by the two brothers in 1999 for taking over the business of a partnership firm functioning as foreign money changers. The petitioners say that such business, the only that the firm and the company were ever involved in, is no longer possible as the company's licence to carry on such business has been revoked and, given that the company was an association of two individuals having equal measure of rights therein, there would be no useful purpose in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchan Oil Industries Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN416
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. Application being C.A.N. No. 4861 of 2007 relates to prayer for condonation of delay. By filing another application being C.A.N, No. 4859 of 2007, the petitioners/State of West Bengal find other authorities prayed for dispensing with filing of the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 21.3.2005 passed in W.P.T.T. No. 246 of 2003.2. It appears that this Court by the said judgment and order dated 21st March, 2005 disposed of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution being W.P.T.T. No. 246 of 2003.3. An application for review of the said judgment and order has been filed earlier by the opposite parties being the petitioners in the writ application and the same has since been taken up for hearing.4. At that stage, the State of West Bengal and other authorities, as petitioners, approached this Court with another application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 21.3.2005.5. The two applications, as referred to earlier, have been filed in conn...
Tag this Judgment!Sisir Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN838
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher on 5th March, 1969 by the concerned Managing Committee of the concerned school. The appointment was duly approved by the State Government. On 15.5.1985 the Government introduced a scheme for pension which would be applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the private school. The teachers who were in service on 18th April, 1981 were required to exercise the option for pension and gratuity within 90 days of the issue of the scheme. At that time the petitioner duly opted for CPF (Contributory Provident Fund)-cum-Gratuity Scheme, and deposits of contribution of both the employer's and employee's share were regularly made. Subsequently, by Government Order No. 496-E.D.N. (B)/IM-39/91 dated 16.12.1991, an opportunity was given to the employees to revise the option. The revised option had to be exercised within 90 days, i.e., on or before 16.3.92. In order to exercise the option, the employees/teachers had to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »