Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The parties agree that an order on the principal matter, AP No. 674 of 2009, will govern all the other matters. Indeed, the reasons given by the common arbitrator is recorded in the award which is the subject matter of AP No. 674 of 2009. The awards made in the seven other references rely on the reasoning given in the principal matter.2. The award in the principal matter is challenged on the ground that the arbitrator acted de hors the agreement between the parties. The specific ground that has been urged in these proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that the arbitrator did not decide the reference in accordance with the terms of the contract. Section 28(3) of the Act has been cited in the context.3. The petitioner in each case is the owner of a jute mill. The petitioners say that in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1958 and the Jute and Jute Textile Control Order, 2000 the Jute Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.1. In this Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 25 workers of Purnalur Paper Mills Limited, Kerala, having its controlling office at 13, Lindsay Street, Kolkata - 700 087 have challenged the propriety of an order dated 20.10.1992 passed by Bench-II of the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and the adjournment order sine die of the Appeal No. 114/92 still pending before the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi.2. The Petitioners contend that they are the employees of Purnalur Paper Mills Limited, respondent No. 1, which is an existing company having 59000 MT pulp and paper mill employing about 1000 workers. Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 are all workers' trade unions. In 1967 the majority shares in the respondent-Company No. 1 was acquired by one L.N. Dalmia while it was lying closed. At that time the company suffered huge losses and had various liabilities under several statutory authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner challenges four several heads of claim that have been entertained and allowed in the impugned arbitral award. The petitioner says that the sums awarded on account of overrun charges, crane-hire charges and interest are in derogation of the agreement between the parties. The petitioner assails the reduction in the quantum of deduction allowed by the arbitral tribunal on account of the respondent-claimant failing to complete the painting work.2. The petitioner obtained an order for setting up some plant or boiler units and was desirous of engaging a sub-contractor for discharging a part of the work. Pursuant to a notice inviting tender issued by the petitioner, the respondent offered to erect, test and commission two 120 MW boilers (Unit II and Unit III) on behalf of the petitioner. The value of the contract awarded in favour of the respondent was Rs. 6,99,40,000/-. Following disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, either party nom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Kishore Kumar Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated. 17.2.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Cooch-Behar in Sessions Trial No. 7(2)02 arising out of Sessions Case No. 47/2000 by which the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 457/376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code.2. The appellants were heard on the question of sentence on 19.2.2004 and thereafter by an order passed on the same day, that is, on 19.2.2004 they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years as also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two years as also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another one year each for the offenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 24 dated 25th January, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Basirhat in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2005 by which the plaintiff/respondent/petitioner was not permitted to amend his plaint at the appellate Stage. The plaintiff/respondent/petitioner was aggrieved by the said order. Hence, he filed the instant revisional application before this Court.2. Heard Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned.3. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Appeal Court was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of 'A' schedule property. He has also prayed for a decree for recovery of posses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th May, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court (E.C. Act), Hooghly at Chinsurah in Misc. Appeal No. 140 of 2003 reversing the judgment and order dated 16.12.03 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Chandannagore in pre-emption Misc. Case No. 36 of 1995, at the instance of the pre-emptors/petitioners.2. Heard Mr. Roy Chowdhury, appearing for the pre-emptor/petitioner and Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party/pre-emptee.3. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned.4. Let me now discuss the merit of this revisional application in the facts of the instant case.5. The pre-emptor/petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for exercising his right of pre-emption in respect of transfer of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The defendant/petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transferring the suit being Title Suit No. 18 of 2006 from the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court at Barasat to any other Court on the ground of biasness of the Presiding Officer of the learned Trial Court.2. The petitioner referred to various interlocutory orders passed by the learned Trial Judge from time to time in the suit, to project the biased attitude of the Presiding Officer against the petitioner. Of course, in course of hearing of this application, Mr. Chakraborty representing the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that apart from the ground of biasness which is made out in the said application as a ground for such transfer, complicated question of law involving public interest is involved in the said suit and as such, justice will be sub-served if the suit is transferred to the High Court itself for its tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of one of the two unsuccessful applicants for stay of winding up of a company in liquidation and is directed against order dated January 8, 2010 by which the learned Company Court has dismissed two applications, one under Section 466 and the other under Section 457 of the Companies Act.2. Being dissatisfied, one of the original applicants has come up with the present appeal.3. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal may be summed up thus:a) One SST Media Private Limited, running a news channel by the name of Kolkata TV, was directed to be wound up by the learned Company Court on May 21, 2009 in C.P. No. 39 of 2009 at the instance of one of the creditors thereof. Several other winding up petitions filed by the creditors were pending and the liability of the company, as it appears from the break-up given in the application, was in the region of Rs. 74 crore.b) The Official Liquidator, consequent to the order of winding up, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
I.P. Mukerji, J.1. The writ petitioner is in partnership business with one Shambu Ghosh. In partnership, they run a factory at premises No. 9/H/1, Abanish Chowdhury Lane, Kolkata - 700046. The business carried on by this partnership firm is manufacturing of rubber goods. The factory has two electricity meters, one of them, 2350145K of the writ petitioner. His partner also has another meter with which this case has no real connection.2. On or about 28th August, 2003 (the date appearing in the order of provisional assessment) the electricity connection of the writ petitioner was disconnected by representatives of the respondent/licensee. Their ground was theft of electricity.3. A provisional assessment was made on 28th August, 2003 itself where the provisional assessed sum was Rs. 2,27,0340/-. This was followed by a final assessment on 2nd October 2003.4. The writ petitioner filed an appeal from that assessment order before the appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed a writ application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
I.P. Mukerji, J.1. The writ petitioner is a consignee of goods known as clinker and gypsum. The transportation was made by Railway. The quantities transported must have been enormous because they were transported between the beginning of 2005 and the end of 2006 and involved substantial freight.2. The issue in this writ application is very short. The question to be answered is whether after unloading of the goods and delivery to the consignee and removal of those goods by it, the railways have any right to make a claim on account of an allegedly excess quantity of goods.3. Admittedly, these goods had been unloaded, delivered to the writ petitioner and removed by it before the claim for demand was made.4. The demanded sum is about Rs. 59,67,377/- raised by innumerable statements issued over a period of time, which are annexed to the writ petition and challenged in this writ.5. Three Sections of the Railways Act are very relevant, namely, Section 73, 78 and 79. These Sections are set out...
Tag this Judgment!