Kolkata Court January 2008 Judgments
Bhagwati Foods P. Ltd. and Basudeo Gupta and ors. Vs. Registrar of Com ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: [2008]143CompCas531(Cal),[2008]88SCL56(Cal)
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Let there be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application admitting the appeal.)2. This appeal is against an order dated April 9, 2007, of the learned single judge in an application of the appellants under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, to the extent that the appellants have not been excused from liability for contravention of Sections 211 (1), (2) and 628 of the said Act, as alleged in a show-cause notice dated May 5, 2005. The appellants have, however, by the order under appeal, been absolved of all liabilities for violation of Section 299(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, as alleged in five other show-cause notices also dated May 5, 2003.3. Pursuant to a notice dated May 28/29, 2003, the books of account and other relevant documents of the appellant-company were inspected by the office of the Eastern Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs of the Government of India.4. By a letter No. JD Inspn./Cal/01/03/3572 ...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman Cum Managing Director and ors. Vs. Coal India Officers Associ ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT1(HC)
ORDERIn pursuance of the letter No. SECL : BSP : CM(EE) : DCC : 99 : 1881 dated 1/2-07-99 Mr. Lakshmanan, Finance Managers hereby allotted quarter No.C-203 at Dankuni Coal Complex Township. You are hereby requested to take possession of the aforesaid quarter within 7(seven) days time from the date of issue of this letter. Otherwise the allotment order will be treated as cancelled.Payment of house rent allowance will be stopped with immediate effect and deduction of house rent will be effective from the date of physical occupation of the quarter as per rule of the company. This issues with the approval of the competent authority.Sd/:(B. Chattopadhyay)Sr. EE(C)TA21. On a bare reading of the impugned decision it appears on the reflection of Clause 2.1, Clause 3.1 of the House Rent Allowance Rules that the same cannot be said as unreasonable and unfair decision on the part of the company appellant.In that view of the matter, the Judgment as relied upon has no applicability in the present c...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Kinkar Karmakar and ors. and Lutfar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT315(HC)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The respondents/writ petitioners were enrolled from time to time as home guards under the West Bengal Home Guard Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 1962'. They approached this Court for regularisation of their services by taking them in the regular pay roll of the State at par with the police personnel as also for an order of restraint as against the State from disturbing their services after attaining the age of 60 years. Pertinent to note, the respondents/writ petitioners in the above appeal did not challenge the vires of the said Act of 1962 and/or the subsequent amendments thereof. State did not file any affidavit-in-opposition before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge upon hearing the respective contentions allowed the writ petition. Rule 4 of the Home Guard Rules, 1962 and its proviso, Sections 5, 6(iii), 7(i), 7(ii), (8), (9) and (10) of the West Bengal Home Guards Act, 1990, the Government order dated September 26, ...
Tag this Judgment!Space Age Technocrats Private Limited Vs. Gobinda Charan Pyne and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN873
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a tenant-defendant in a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th day of May, 1997, passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 83 of 1994 thereby passing the decree for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent.2. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present first appeal.3. The case made out by the plaintiff-respondent may be abridged thus:(a) One Durga Charan Pyne, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, during his lifetime, was the owner of the premises No. 8, Canal Road, Calcutta-22 and upon his death on 29th January, 1992, the respondents, being his widow and the sons, inherited the property as the sole heirs.(b) One Delta Trading Company was a tenant under the said predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in respect of the entire 8, Canal Road and the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Swapan Kumar Nandan Vs. Ram Kishore Duby and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN631
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This probate appeal is at the instance of one of the caveators and is directed against judgment and decree dated 16th March, 1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Original Suit No. 5 of 1985 thereby granting probate of the last Will and Testament of one Tara Sankar Nandan executed on 6th February, 1978 and subsequently registered on 10th February, 1978, before the Registrar, Calcutta.2. The respondent No. 1 before us filed the aforesaid proceedings for grant of probate of a Will alleged to have been executed by Tara Sankar Nandan on 6th February, 1978 and registered on 10th February, 1978 by which the respondent No. 1 was appointed the sole executor. By the said Will, the testator gave his undivided share in the Premises No. 2 Kansharipara Lane, in favour of the appellant, his only son, and his entire right, title and interest in the Premises No. 49, Rupnarayan Nandan Lane, was bequeathed in favour of the respondent No. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Padmavati Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sm. Kusum Agarwal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT331(HC),2008(2)CHN267
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 222 dated 2nd August, 2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court Alipore in Title Suit No. 102 of 1987 whereby the petitioner's application for addition of party in a suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiff/opposite party against the defendants/opposite parties, was rejected by the learned Trial Judge on contest.2. The petitioner is admittedly a transferee pendente lite who purchased the suit property from the defendants/opposite parties by registered deed of conveyance dated 30th September, 2003. The petitioner claims that the petitioner purchased the suit property for a valuable consideration.3. The petitioner further claims that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property since the time of its purchase. After coming to know of the pendency of this suit from the vendor, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Madhulata Kankani and ors. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT175(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. Four persons have joined together in this writ petition dated September 20th, 2006 seeking a mandamus commanding the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to take necessary steps for supplying water to them and also to grant permission to operate the deep tube well sunk in the premises concerned.2. Their case is this. They have been residing in the premises at 10, Bakery Road, Kolkata-700 022 as tenants. It is a property of the eighth respondent, M.B. Commercial Trust. There are eleven flats in the existing buildings and all are occupied by tenants. In May 1999 the tenants faced an acute shortage of water, and consequently, on the basis of. their request, the trustees for the eighth respondent applied to the corporation for permission to sink a deep tube well in the premises. They were informed by the trustees that the corporation granted the requisite permission to sink a deep tube well. At the material point of time there were two sources of water supply to the pre...
Tag this Judgment!N.D. Tubes Impex Private Limited and ors. Vs. Geeta Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN1008
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The first and second defendants, the persons against whom reliefs have primarily been sought in the suit, have applied for the plaint to be taken off the file on the ground that even if the plaintiffs' basis for valuation of the suit were accepted, it would fall below the pecuniary threshold of receiving a suit in this Court.2. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 rely on the principle recognized by Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that a suit has to be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. The applicant-defendants refer to the last two paragraphs of the plaint and say that the reliefs claimed in the suit do not match up to the palpably absurd valuation indicated. The two concluding paragraphs of the plaint read as follows:51. For the purpose of Court-fees and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs. 10,00,001/- and the maximum Court-fees of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid thereon. The plaintiffs undertake to pay further Court-fees, if found d...
Tag this Judgment!Unenco (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN810
Biswanath Somadder, J.1. In view of the common question of law involved in both the applications, the same are taken up together for disposal with the following common order:The Presiding Officer of Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal No. 2 by two separate orders, passed in Case No. TA/23/2001 and TA/12/2001 was inter alia pleased to direct the third party in both the applications, being the occupants of a mortgaged property, to appear before the learned Tribunal on the next date of hearing at a camp sitting at Siliguri. The issue that arises for consideration in the two applications is whether the Presiding Officer of Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal No. 2 had jurisdiction vested under the statute to hold a hearing at a 'camp sitting' at Siliguri. In order to come to a finding on this issue it is necessary to look into the relevant statute, especially the relevant provisions relating to establishment of a Tribunal under the provisions of law. The relevant statute in the instant case is the...
Tag this Judgment!Gour Nitye Tea and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Central Bank of In ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal193,(2008)1CALLT511(HC)
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. This Court has heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. Having heard the said learned advocates, it appears that the facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows:2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioners are in the business of processing tea leaves and they own a Tea Garden in Assam and that the petitioners have been compelled to file the writ petition because the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities have refused to release the security that was pledged for securing the loan and/or advance made to the petitioner No. 1 by the said respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities through its branch office at Jalpaiguri. The petitioners have stated in their writ petition that the petitioner No. 2 being one of the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 has common interest in two other companies namely, SRK Tea Processing Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SRK) and Gurjangjhora Tea & Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GTI) and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »