Kolkata Court February 2009 Judgments

Jaideep Halwasiya Vs. Rasoi Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2009]91SCL352(Cal),(2009)23VST20(NULL)

Dipankar Datta, J.1. All the three appeals being directed against the judgment and order dated 4-7-2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, they were heard together and shall be governed by this common judgment.2. The appellant in APOT Nos. 266 and 267 of 2008 (hereafter the plaintiff) instituted C.S. No. 274 of 2006. The cause of action giving rise to the suit, in brief, is that the plaintiff is a shareholder of the company holding 1,29,677 shares representing more than 7 per cent of the total shareholding; that from the notice of the Annual General Meeting, he noticed that the company as a special business was proposing to pass a resolution under Section 81(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter the Act) for issue and allotment of 1,32,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each on a preferential basis to the promoters, viz. Hindusthan Composites Limited (defendant No. 2) and M/s. J.L. Morrison (India) Limited (defendant No. 3) out of un-issued authorized share capital; that the ...

Sushil Kumar Agarwal Vs. Kalidas Sadhu

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal174

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2007, passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1150 of 2003 thereby dismissing the said suit on the sole ground that the suit, being one for specific performance of a contract for construction of building, was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present appeal. The plaintiff/appellant filed the aforesaid suit initially claiming the following relief:a) Leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.b) A decree for declaration that the alleged letter dated 19th May, 2003 purportedly issued on behalf of the defendant has no force in the eye of law and is not binding on the parties.c) A decree for permanent injunction r...

Bishtupada Bag @ Bishnupada Bag @ Bistu Bag Vs. National Insurance Com ...

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of a claimant in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 14th May, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Twelfth Court, Alipore, and the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, District-South 24-Parganas, in M.A.C. Case No. 267 of 2001, thereby disposing of the said proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs. 3,77,800/- in favour of the claimant by directing the National Insurance Company to pay the said amount within 60 days from the date of award with further direction that in default, the statutory interest over the compensation would accrue.2. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal. There is no dispute about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident resulting in physical injury of the claimant and the fact that such vehicle is insured by the National Insurance Company. According to the appellant, he was a mason and used to earn Rs. 12...

Calcutta Swimming Club Vs. Lalit Singh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This First Miscellaneous Appeal is at the instance of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No. 16 dated 21st August, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby disposing of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs/respondents thereby restraining the present appellants from giving any effect to the results of the interviews of the candidates for membership with the intention to induct them as associate members under restricted category and also restraining them from convening any further meeting or interview to induct any associate members as restricted members of the defendant No. 1 till the disposal of the suit. The appellants were further restrained from inducting the proposed associate members with restricted rights from becoming the members of the defendant No. 1 till the disposal of the suit. Being dissatisfied, the defendant Nos....

Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and ors. Vs. Sukdeo Ram Yad ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ690Cal

Dipankar Datta, J.1. The judgment and order dated July 24, 2008 of the Court appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereafter the Act), being the competent authority, allowing an application under Section 15 thereof of the concerned employees (respondents herein) on contest and holding that they are entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs. 70,185/- against the opposite parties viz. the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta (petitioners herein) and compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,40,370/-, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ application.2. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is one passed without jurisdiction and, therefore, this Court ought to entertain the writ petition despite availability of an appellate forum under the Act. According to him, the claims of the employees were barred by limitation and, therefore, ought not to have been entertained by the authority. The authority without assigning any reason ...

Binode Bihari Das Vs. Kashi Nath Mukherjee and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of affirmance passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Appeal No. 31 of 1996 affirming the judgment and decree dated 21st September, 1995 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 471 of 1987. The plaintiffs' suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs and the members of their family was allowed on contest by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge, the defendant/appellant preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. Two applications were filed by the appellant in the said appeal.2. One of such application was filed under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file an additional written statement for bringing on record certain facts which according to the appellants, could not be brought on record at the time of filin...

Darpa Narayan Ghosh Vs. the Chief Medical Officer of Health and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The writ petitioner complains of the arbitrary conduct on the part of the respondent authorities in declining to accept the more favourable commercial terms offered by the writ petitioner and preferring the private respondent's bid.2. The writ petitioner claims that an irrational basis was adopted by the respondent authorities in choosing the eighth respondent's offer ahead of the petitioner's.3. The State respondents invited offers for installation of CT scan facilities at the Hooghly Imambara Sadar District Hospital on a joint venture basis. The tender documents provided that private parties who qualified on technical and cost grounds would be assessed on a quality and cost-based basis. By June 12, 2008 both the petitioner and the eighth respondent put in their revised papers expressing interest. Both commercial bids were divided into two columns, with rates set out for government hospital patients and private patients. There were no other offers received pursua...

Cit Vs. Potential Management Services Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue on the question that the deletion of an addition of Rs. 14,00,000 representing the bad debts written off without giving any specific finding regarding nature of loan as to whether the same was in any way connected with the business of the assessee and whether any income therefrom was ever shown in the past. An appeal was filed before the Tribunal on the said question being aggrieved by an order so passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-1-2008 for the assessment year 2005-06. It appears that the assessee carries on business amongst other a money lending business during the relevant previous year. It also appears from the facts that as per audited note No. 7(c) an amount of Rs. 14 lakhs was outstanding in the account of M/s Super Tex (India) was written off as unrecoverable during the previous year. On enquiry made by the assessing officer, it was submitted by the assessee, the respondent herein, that the said sum of Rs. 14 lakhs was giv...

Octavius Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. Fifth Industrial Tribunal and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ857Cal

Dipankar Datta, J.1. While hearing an industrial dispute between the workman and the petitioner, the 5th Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata had passed an ex parte award dated February 26, 2008 directing reinstatement of the workman in service with full back wages w.e.f. May 2, 2005.2. The petitioner had applied before the Tribunal on May 2, 2008 for setting aside the ex parte award dated February 26, 2008. According to it, provisions contained in Rules 21 and 20-B(5) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1985 (hereinafter the said Rules) had not been complied with and, therefore, it had no occasion to contest the proceedings before the said Tribunal. By an order dated September 30, 2008, the Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that it had become functus officio. It proceeded to record that the award having been made on February 26, 2008, it had been published on March 27, 2008 and upon expiry of 30 days from date of publication, the award becam...

icici Bank Limited Vs. Garodia Vyapar Pratisthan Private Limited

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2009]150CompCas746(Cal),[2010]97SCL325(Cal)

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. ICICI Bank Limited the appellant above named is a public limited company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 1956'). Its shares are quoted with the recognised Stock Exchanges of the country and abroad. The respondent is also a company said to be registered under the provisions of the said Act of 1956, inter alia, dealing with shares. Respondent claimed that it purchased 410 shares of Rs. 100.00 each and 250 shares of Rs. 10.00 each of the appellant in exchange of valuable consideration from M/s R.K. Chamaria & Company of 3A, Pollock Street, Calcutta. The respondent also claimed that the shares were kept in their office at 5, Sambhu Mallick Lane, Calcutta along with blank transfer deeds duly executed by the respective transferors. On May 31,1995 those shares were found missing from the office of the respondent. On June 2,1995 the respondent informed the appellant about such misplacement and reques...