Kolkata Court July 2009 Judgments

Mannan Travels Transport Contractor and ors. Vs. Durgapur Projects Ltd ...

Court: Kolkata

Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1st of April, 2009 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed and the award of the contract to Eureka Travels Club (Durgapur) (herein after referred to as respondent No. 4) has been upheld. 2. A notice inviting tenders was issued by Durgapur Projects Limited (herein after referred to respondent No. 1) for transport facilities with the fleet of at least (Seven) buses and (one) luxury mini-bus. These buses were to be engaged for transporting the workers of respondent No. 1 from their residences to the work place and their school going children to their respective schools. The last date for receipt of tenders was 30th of September, 2008. Seven parties including the writ petitioner and respondent No. 4 submitted their tenders. The tender had to be submitted in four parts as follows : I) 1st part should contain E.M.D. II) 2nd part should con...

Harsh Vardhan Lodha Vs. the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Indi ...

Court: Kolkata

Dipankar Datta, J.1. The petitioners in W.P. No. 7034 (W) of 2009 and W.P. No. 7038 (W) of 2009, Harsh Vardhan Lodha and Aditya Vikram Lodha respectively, are chartered accountants. They are enrolled members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (hereafter the Institute). Since the two petitions involve common questions, the same were heard together and shall be governed by this common judgment and order.2. The geneses of the present proceedings require notice. The Institute had received complaints against the petitioners, who are brothers, and their father Rajendra Singh Lodha (since deceased) alleging professional misconduct committed by them and had duly registered the same under Section 21 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereafter the Act). Thereafter, in terms of provisions in the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (hereafter the said Regulations), it served copies thereof inviting them to file their written statements. The petitioners and their father in...

Tapan Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Registrar General and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Aniruddha Bose, J.1. The twelve petitioners, who have jointly moved this writ petition are judicial officers belonging to the cadre of civil judge (senior division) and barring one of them, that is petitioner No. 10, they have been functioning as additional district judges on the basis of ad hoc promotion given to them in different phases as fast track court judges in different districts of West Bengal. 2. In this writ petition, different prayers have been made for directions on the High Court administration and the State Government for promotion of the petitioners in the rank of district judges, but in course of hearing, submissions were made on behalf of the petitioners on two grounds. Prayer was made, in substance, for invalidating an examination for promotion of civil judges (senior division) to the rank of district judges. The second prayer made was declaratory in nature. A direction was sought from this Court to the effect that the officers who were given ad- hoc promotion as add...

Indian Structural Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradip Kumar Saha ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4229

1. Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal has been made to the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27-1-2009, rejecting the application of the appellant-company under Section 340 of Cr. P.C. In the aforesaid application the prayers were made as follows:A. An order be passed asking the Respondents to show cause as to why the prosecution proceedings shall not be initiated against them for offences under Sections 193, 208, 209 and 210 of Indian Penal Code;B. On consideration of the causes shown, if any, by the Respondents, in terms of Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code an order may be passed appointing an officer of this Hon'ble Court to file complaint against the Respondents under Sections 193, 208, 209 and 210 of Indian Penal Code before a Magistrate of competent Jurisdiction at Kolkata and to take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint;2. The above prayers of the company were rejected by the Learned single Judge with the observation that the Court is not prima fa...

Kenneth Arthur Vardon Wilson Vs. Ratan Marothia and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2010Cal10

I.P. Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order dated 6th August, 2006, passed by the Court of the first instance. By such judgment and order the application of Kenneth Arthur Vardon Wilson for dismissal of the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed.FACTS:2. Kenneth is the appellant before us.The point involved in the suit is short but very important.The question to be answered is when, on the death of the defendant, an application for substitution of her legal representative has been made within time and allowed, but the amendment not carried out within the time stipulated by the order, would the suit abate ?3. The suit is of 1990. In the suit, the respondent/plaintiff claims specific performance of an agreement dated 2nd January, 1989 for sale of premises No. 6 Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata, against the defendant Mrs. Helen Wilson, being the mother of Kenneth. On 11th October, 1993 the defendant died. On 6th January, 1994 the plaintiff/respondent filed an application to record...

Samir Adhikary Vs. Krishna Adhikary

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal278

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a proceeding under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th March, 2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, First Court at Burdwan, in Matrimonial Suit No. 2 of 2002 thereby dismissing the said proceeding. 2. Being dissatisfied, the husband has come up with the present appeal. 3. The appellant before us filed a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 91 of 2001 before the learned District Judge for annulling his marriage with the respondent under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the marriage had not been consummated due to impotency of the respondent. The said case was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, First Court, Burdwan, and was re-numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 2 of 2002. 4. The case made out by the appellant may be summed up thus. a) T...

Elements Coke Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Uco Bank

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal252

ORDERJyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The following issue has been raised in this revisional application before this Court for its consideration:Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Calcutta has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act) over the subject-matter of the dispute arising out of an action taken by the concerned bank against the borrower as per Section 13(4) of the said Act for realisation of its dues by sale of the mortgaged property of the petitioner at Gujarat?2. In fact, the petitioner (borrower) invoked the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Calcutta for redressal of its grievances arising out of the action taken by the bank (secured creditor) under Section 13(4) of the said Act, as according to the petitioner, part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the ...

Smt. Binita Bag Vs. Tapas Bag

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal267

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights since converted to a suit for divorce by way of amendment, and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 2008, passed by Sri P.K. Bandopadhaya, the learned Additional District Judge, First Class, Howrah in Matrimonial Suit No. 124 of 2007 thereby passing a decree for divorce.2. Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present appeal.3. The respondent before us filed a suit being Title Suit No. 124 of 2007 before the learned District Judge, Howrah for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, First Class, Howrah for disposal.4. On 14th March, 2007, the date fixed for peremptory hearing of the suit, the respondent filed two applications, one for acceptance of evidence in the form of affidavit-in-chief and the second one, an application under ...

Promita Chakraborty Vs. Avik Kumar Maitra and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal286

ORDERJyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. Both the parties wanted to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, both the parties Jointly filed an application for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.2. Subsequently, the petitioner (wife) left the station by executing a power of attorney in favour of one of her friends authorising him to represent her in the said matrimonial proceeding.3. The said power of attorney holder filed an application before the learned Trial Judge seeking permission from the Court for allowing him to represent the petitioner (wife) in the said proceeding.4. Such permission was refused by the learned Trial Judge by considering the spirit of the provision contained in Section 28(2) of the said Act which provides that on the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in Sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, ...

Sunil Kakrania and ors. Vs. Saltee Infrastructure Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal260

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two appeals were heard together as those are interlinked. F.M.A.T. No. 433 of 2009 is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for recovery of money and is directed against Order No. 14 dated 26th February, 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court, Barasat in Money Suit No. 122 of 2008 thereby disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff by restraining the defendant from transferring or alienating the suit property described in Schedule A to the plaint and from creating any third party's interest in respect of the said property till the disposal of the suit. 2. The other appeal being F.M.A.T. No. 692 of 2009 is, on the other hand, at the instance of the plaintiff of the said suit and is directed against the later part of the selfsame order dated 26th February, 2009 by which the learned Trial Judge dismissed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code o...