Kolkata Court January 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Chairman, State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Mihir Kumar Nandi and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are taken up together.2. This appeal is at the instance of the Chairman, State Bank of India and others and is directed against an order dated 28th August, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed an application filed by the cross-objector/respondent and set aside the order dated 30th August, 2001 with a direction upon the appellant/Bank to pay 12% interest to the writ- petitioner from the date of filing of the writ-petition on all arrears of pension within six weeks from the said date. His Lordship further directed that the pension month by month should be paid to the writ-petitioner in accordance with the Rules.3. Being dissatisfied, the State Bank Authority has preferred the appeal and the writ-petitioner has filed a cross-objection being dissatisfied with the refusal of grant of pre-proceedings interest as also damages claimed in the writ-application.4. The following facts ar...
Three-n-products Private Limited Vs. Emami Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. Both the appeals, one filed by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant, were taken up together and we propose to dispose those two appeals by this common judgement.2. The APO No. 248 of 2008 is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit alleging violation of registered trademark and also complaining passing off and is directed against an order dated 26th August, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship modified the earlier interim order granted ex parte in favour of the plaintiff.3. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present appeal.4. The defendant, on the other hand, is aggrieved by the modified part of injunction granted by the learned Trial Judge and has filed the other appeal being APOT No. 355 of 2008 thereby praying for dismissal of the application for temporary injunction in its entirety.5. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals may be summed up thus:The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit ...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Bunty J.C.B. Earth Movers and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) praying for appointment of a receiver in order to take possession of the assets being the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement with a direction upon him to make over the same to the petitioner or to sell the same; an order of injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with or disposing of the assets being subject-matter of arbitration has also been prayed for. There are two respondents. Both of them are in the state of Haryana. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been prayed for on the basis that part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.2. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner moved the petition on 20th November 2009 and prayed for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent when the following order was passed:The petitioner is granted liberty to f...
Assam Company Limited and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The principal application taken up for consideration is the one by the first two defendants for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent or, in the alternative, for dismissal of the suit or, in the further alternative, for rejection of the plaint. In GA No. 649 of 2002 the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. claim that the plaintiffs have no cause of action; that this Court did not have the authority to receive the suit; and, that the claim is, in any event, barred by the laws of limitation.2. There are two other applications that have also been taken up. GA No. 1189 of 2009 is the plaintiffs' application for amendment of the plaint on formal grounds since the name of the second plaintiff has been changed during the pendency of the suit and the third, fourth and fifth plaintiffs have apparently merged in the first plaintiff. The third application, GA No. 1234 of 2009, is by the plai...
Niranjan Singha Roy Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-2010
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. The aforesaid two appeals have been preferred challenging the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.08.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 1987. By the said judgment the accused appellant in CRA No. 347 of 2000, namely, Niranjan Singha Roy was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two years more. The said accused appellant was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for committing offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing offence under Section 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The accused appellants in CRA No. 354 of 2000 were convicted under Section 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenc...
Mridula Ghosh and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. BACKDROP:Mridula Ghosh, the appellant No. 1 above named was the Assistant Teacher of Work Education in Sasibhusan Dutta Girls High School in the District of Birbhum. She was appointed as such by the School Authority on a recommendation made by the School Service Commission under Memo dated May 27, 2003. Similarly, appellant No. 2 Mita Mondal was an Assistant Teacher in Language Group in Bahiri Khand Girish Institution in the District of Hooghly. She was also recommended by the School Service Commission vide Memo dated May 21, 2005. Both of them were stated to have been suffering immense prejudice in attending their respective duties as their respective residences were far away from the respective schools. They wanted a mutual transfer to reduce their hardship. In case they were transferred to each other school they would be benefited by the fact that the concerned schools would be near to their respective residences. They approached their respective schools w...
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. and ors. Vs. Central Board of T ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of an identical issue. These are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Hindusthan Steelworks Construction Limited (hereinafter referred to as H.S.C.L.) is a public sector undertaking having deep and pervasive control by the Union of India. Short question involved in this appeal is whether H.S.C.L. is entitled to continue to enjoy the exemption granted under paragraph 79 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme pending consideration of their application for a permanent exemption under Section 17(1) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1952)3. The said Act of 1952 empowered to the Central Government to exempt any organisation from the purview of the said Act of 1952, fully or partially. Such power is derived from Section 17 of the said Act of 1952. The Government is entitled to exempt any organisation in case their own Provid...
Smt. Hira Basu Vs. the Municipal Commissioner and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The principal relief claimed in the suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of premises No. 82B, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta - 700013. The second relief is directed against the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in that it seeks a declaration that the mutation or separation in respect of the said premises, as reflected in the Corporation records, is unlawful and null and void. The third relief claimed is for a declaration that any order issued by the controller under the Calcutta Thika and other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 in respect of the said premises is illegal and void.2. About the time that the suit was instituted the plaintiff applied for interlocutory reliefs by way of GA No. 298 of 1999. There is an order of status quo relating to the mutation that is subsisting. The third defendant applied within months of the suit being filed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by t...
Npr Finance Limited Vs. Deepak Jhunjhunwala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The two suits are almost identical save the identity of the plaintiffs and the amounts claimed on account of money lent and advanced. The defendant in either case has applied for dismissal of the suit on the ground that no writ of summons was served within reasonable time by the plaintiff. It is submitted on behalf of the two plaintiffs that a judgment on the one matter would govern the other.2. The plaints in the two suits were presented on March 28, 2003 and March 23, 2003, respectively. The writ of summons in the later suit was issued on March 25, 2009; in the earlier suit it was issued on April 1, 2003. By orders of the Master dated February 24, 2009 the returnable dates of the writs of summons were extended. On March 23, 2009 the defendant was served the writs of summons in both suits. The petitions have been filed in the beginning of April, 2009.3. The defendant says that the plaintiffs took no steps after the institution of the suits for ensuring that the w...
Tata Motors Limited and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-2010
Dipankar Datta, J.1. This is the second round of litigation between the same parties.2. In their earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 1571 of 2008), the petitioners averred that for setting up an automobile plant at P.S. Singur, District Hooghly to manufacture a passenger vehicle (Nano) and sell it in India at a price of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the first petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (hereafter the MOA) with the Government of West Bengal and the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (hereafter the Corporation). According to the petitioners, information provided to the Government of West Bengal and the Corporation relating to manufacture of 'Nano' and as contained in the MOA, inter alia, 'is of a commercially confidential nature' and such information was imparted in confidence on the understanding that it would not be made public and that any disclosure contemplated would be subject to the provisions of Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »