Kolkata Court May 2009 Judgments

Ainul Haque and ors. Vs. Smt. Tanushree Dey and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The pages and parties referred to hereinafter would relate to FMA No. 244 of 2009 and the Paper Book filed in the said proceeding.2. The district town of Bankura is under Bankura Municipality. At Machantala in Bankura town there exists a mosque which is being used by the members of the minority community residing at Bankura town for religious purpose. From the photographs disclosed in the proceeding it appears that there had been further construction in the said mosque, which had no sanction from the Municipality, although the law required such permission to be taken. The parties before us admitted that such construction was totally illegal in absence of appropriate sanction being obtained from the Municipality being the prescribed authority under the Bengal Municipal Act. The Municipality, however, did not take any step against the said mosque.3. The respondent No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Dey respondents) were the owners of the adjacent premi...

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Shri Niranjan Chatterjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Biswanath Somadder, J.1. The appeal has been preferred along with an application for stay by Eastern Coalfields Limited, a Government Company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Coal Company) against an order dated 02nd May, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, being W.P. No. 16980(W) of 2005, filed by the appellant against Shri Niranjan Chatterjee and others.2. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Coal Company's writ petition, which was filed challenging an order dated 24/29th December, 1998 of the Government of India, through the Ministry of Labour, referring a dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Asansol and the award dated 21st December, 2004 passed by the said Tribunal in Reference No. 5 of 1999, consequently.3. The brief facts of the case, culled out from the award dated 21st December, 2004, passed by the learned Tribunal, are a...

Smt. Dulali Bala Sharma Vs. Sri Santosh Chowdhury

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated 16.09.2008 passed by the learned Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No. 496 of 1986 whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected the petition dated 29.08.2008 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit for eviction on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, sub-letting, etc. in 1986 and the suit is at the stage of peremptory hearing. After close of the evidence of the P.W.1 on behalf of the plaintiff, he sought for amendment of the plaint seeking certain facts which relate to the matter to be decided for consideration of eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. That application was rejected by the order impugned. So the plaintiff filed this application.3. Having considered the submission of the learned Advocate for the plaintiff/petitioner and on perusal of th...

Gemco Engineering Works Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This application is at the instance of the tenant and is directed against the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Estate Officer in EO/186/0899 allowing the application for amendment of the eviction petition of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.2. The landlord/opposite party filed the said eviction case against the tenant/petitioner under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. In that case, the tenant/petitioner appeared and filed a written objection. Evidence on behalf of both the sides had been completed. The case was at the stage of closing argument on behalf of the tenant. At that time, amendment of the application was preferred, which was allowed by the order impugned stating, inter alia, that if the prayer for amendment is allowed it would not change the nature and character of the proceedings. At the same time, it was observed by the Estate Officer that the tenant/petitioner was at liberty to raise objectio...

Jct Ltd. Vs. Cit

Court: Kolkata

1. This appeal was admitted under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1994-95 on the following questions:(a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the disallowance of interest expenditure to the extent of Rs. 10,24,59,637 incurred by the appellant in respect of capital borrowed and utilized for the purposes of its business in respect of which the appellant was entitled to deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (b) Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that any part of the interest-free loans to the subsidiary and associate companies was given by the appellant out of borrowed funds and its purported findings upholding the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 10,24,59,637 have been arrived at by ignoring the relevant materials and/or by taking into consideration irrelevant and/or extraneous materials and/or are otherwise arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse?2. The facts of the case briefly are as...

Kajaria Yarns and Twines Ltd., in Re

Court: Company Law Board CLB Kolkata

Reported in: 2010(94)CLA299; 2010(98)SCL22(CLB-KOL.)

1. In this order, I am considering CA 203 of 2009 filed by the petitioner and CA 214 of 2009 filed by the respondents both in CP 10(KOL.) of 2009. 2. The facts of the case are that when the petition was mentioned on 9-4-2009, I passed certain ex parte interim orders in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents filed CA 39 of 2009 seeking for dismissal of the petition or in the alternative for vacating the ex parte interim order dated 9-4-2009 on the ground that the petitioners had suppressed an order passed by Calcutta High Court on 7-4-2009. After hearing the counsel on this application and after having convinced myself that the ex parte interim order dated 9-4-2009 was obtained by suppression/non-disclosure of a material and vital fact, I vacated the said order by an order dated 27-4-2009. The petitioners thereafter filed CA 203 of 2009 seeking for the same interim reliefs that were granted in the order dated 9-4-2009. The reliefs granted therein and sought for now are: (...

Poonam Kejriwal Vs. Bhagwandas Auto Finance Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal221

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, mesne profit and is directed against Order No. 5 dated 18th November, 2008, passed by the learned trial Judge thereby dismissing an application for temporary injunction filed by the appellant.2. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal.3. The appellant before us filed in the Fourth Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore, a suit being Title Suit No. 2541 of 2008 thereby praying for the following relief:a) A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the said flat, more fully and particularly described in the Annexure-'A' to the plaint entitled to the quite, exclusive and vacant possession of the same to the exclusion of all others including the defendants and each of them;b) A decree against the defendants and each of them including the defendant No. 3 directing the eviction of ...

Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Superintendent of Police, Cbi, Crime Branch

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3526

Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. These two applications are being taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this order as the matter is substantially the same.2. The background of the case is that one public interest litigation was filed before the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice M.H.S. Ansari by the General Secretary, Association for Protection of Democratic Rights, Calcutta for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production of one boy, namely, Pinter Yadav who allegedly had been secreted in an unknown place by the respondents of the said petition since his detention in police custody, and a writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate/enquire into the case against the respondents or any other erring police officials. Pinter Yadav and one Manjit Jadav both under 16 years of age were brought before the O.C., Pradhan Nagar Police Outpost after they were arrested near Tenzing Bus Terminus without complying with the directives issued by the Supreme...

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mitra and Ghosh Publishers (Pvt.) ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal268

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the defendant, the Insurance Company, and is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 31st May, 2003, passed by the learned Judge, Seventh Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Money Suit No. 642 of 1997, thereby passing a decree for Rs. 5,57,500/- in favour of the plaintiff by directing the defendant to pay the said amount within thirty days from the date of decree.2. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present first appeal.3. The respondent before us filed a suit being Money Suit No. 642 of 1997 before the Seventh Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, thereby praying for recovery of sum of Rs. 6,12,3100/- and further sum of Rs. 71,000/- as interest.4. The case made out by the plaintiff/respondent may be summed up thus:a) The plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act and carries on business of publication of printed books from its registered office at 10, Shyama Charan De Street.b) E...

Jct Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2010)229CTR(Cal)100

1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Act for the asst. yr. 1996-97 has been admitted by this Hon'ble Court on the following questions of law:(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in remanding the issue relating to disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 90,35,217 to the AO, particularly in view of the order dt. 20th Dec, 2000 passed by the CIT(A) and the order dt. 25th April, 2003 passed by the Tribunal both for the asst. yr. 1995-96?(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in ignoring its findings for the asst. yr. 1995-96 that the advance to M/s Sonia International was made for purchase for capital goods out of the appellant's own funds and not out of borrowed funds, and in remanding the matter for the asst. yr. 1996-97 to the AO for an enquiry about the source of funds for making the advance on the assumption that it was a loan?(iii) Whether in view of the findings of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1995-96 which were accepted by the Revenue, namely, that loans wer...