Kolkata Court November 2008 Judgments
Ganpat Lal Pawan Kumar and anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Spinning Co. L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)CHN694
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful writ petitioners and is directed against order dated July 13,2007, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the said writ application on merit.2. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioners have come up with the present mandamus appeal.3. The case made out by the appellants in the writ application out of which the present mandamus appeal arises may be summed up thus:1) The appellant No. 1 is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act and carrying on business at the address given in the cause-title of the application. The appellant No. 2 carries on business through the agency and/or instrumentality of the appellant No. 1 from Kolkata. In its usual course of business, the appellant No. 1 was associated with the respondent No. 1 and had business relationship with the respondent No. 1 as a dealer, distributor or consignment agent for the period ...
Tag this Judgment!Abl International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Ramchand Sadarangani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: (2009)1CALLT1(HC),2009(1)CHN56
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 4 in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against order dated 19th June, 1998 as modified on 24th June, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the application filed by the appellant in the suit by which the appellant prayed for the following orders:(a) The Id. Receiver be directed to recover, realise and receive the sum of Rs. 1,08,573.79 for the period up to November, 1997 from the plaintiffs in respect of shop room No. A-8 as per Annexure 'X-21' and the sum of Rs. 9,66,356.29 for the period up to November, 1997 from the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of shop room Nos. A-6 and A-7 as per Annexure 'X-20' and the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to pay the said respective sums of Rs. 1,08,573.79 as per Annexure 'X-21' and Rs. 9,66,356.29 as per Annexure 'X20' to the learned Receiver within a week from the date of order to be made herein and th...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. Puranmal Kedia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-04-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)CHN838
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These three first appeals were heard analogously as these arose out of a common judgment dated 20th December, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Alipore, District South 24-Parganas, thereby disposing of three suits which were heard analogously. By the said common judgment, all the three suits being Title Suit No. 6 of 1992, Title Suit No. 74 of 1992 and Title Suit No. 79 of 1992 were decreed.2. Being dissatisfied, the common defendant of those three suits has come up with the present three first appeals.3. The case made out by the plaintiff-respondent in Title Suit No. 6 of 1992 may be summed up thus:(a) The plaintiff was the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law carrying on business under the name and style of Puranmall Narayan Prasad Kedia. The defendant No. 2 is the wife of the said Karta.(b) By a registered deed of covenant dated September 7, 1961 between the defendant No. 2 and E...
Tag this Judgment!Sarama Das and ors. Vs. Bhutnath Ghorui and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ401
B. Bhattacharya and R.N. Banerjee, JJ.1. Instead of disposal of the application, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating it as on day's list as a pure question of law has arisen for determination in this appeal.2. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is directed against the award dated 24.1.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, First Court at Chander-nagore, Hooghly in M.A.C. Case No. 321 of 2003 thereby dismissing the application on the sole ground that the applicants being the three married sisters were not dependent upon the victim and as such, could not maintain the application.3. The learned Tribunal, however, found that in the fact of the present case, the actual amount of compensation should be Rs. 1,74,500. The learned Tribunal found that in the fact of the present case, the applicable multiplier should be 17 and that the principle of notional income should be app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›