Kolkata Court February 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.
Reliance Industries Limited Vs. Khaitan Transport Company Private Limi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. An award made under the Arbitration Act, 1940 in the year 1991 has been challenged under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act.2. The arbitration Clause did not oblige the Arbitrator to give reasons in support of his award. The petitioner says that notwithstanding the Arbitrator not being required to furnish reasons, the Arbitrator has, in fact, passed a reasoned award and the petitioner is entitled to question the reasons.3. Over the first two pages of the award, the Arbitrator has narrated the facts and at the third page the Arbitrator has recorded the following before specifying the amounts awarded under various heads:According to the respondent's counter statement, it intended to terminate the contract on the ground of default/neglect/failure of the claimant. However, the respondent as it appears stated hiring truck/lorries from third parties since January 1988 and completely stopped giving any transportation job to the claimant from February 1988. The respondent even...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Graphic Industries Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. An interim award for Rs. 25 lakh is under challenge in these proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Pursuant to tender invitations issued by the Eastern Railway the respondent submitted offers for supply of store material. It is the respondent's case in the reference that the goods were supplied without any contemporaneous objection as to quality or quantity and the Railways thereafter failed to make payment of the amounts due. The claim goes back to the year 1990. The respondent instituted divers proceedings before this Court and ultimately filed a suit in the year 1994. According to the interim award, the reference commenced in the year 2007.3. The Arbitrator has recorded that the parties had filed the statement of claims and statement of counter-claims and rejoinders. Written notes of argument had also been filed by the respondent claimant. The interim award notices that the Railways had admitted having withheld payment of...
N.K. Malhotra and Rajesh Kumar Malhotra Vs. Cesc Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-2010
I.P. Mukerji, J.1. The facts of the above two writ applications are identical. As common questions of facts and law arise, both are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Each of these writs challenges a final order of assessment dated 28th March 2008 passed by the Assessing Officers, Group VII. By this assessment order the assessment of unauthorised use of electricity made by the writ petitioners has been assessed Rs. 15,60984/in W.P. No. 678 of 2008 and Rs. 7,70,327/- in W.P. No. 969 of 2008.3. By virtue of an interim order passed in an earlier writ challenging disconnection, the electricity supply which was cut off during inspection has been restored without any deposit or condition in W.P. No. 678 of 2008.4. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 678 of 2008 is a registered partnership firm. It runs a restaurant. On 5th February 2008, the electricity connection to the restaurant was cut off on the allegation of theft/unauthorised use of electricity after a visit by the ins...
Jethulal Mahato Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-2010
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order and judgment dated 13th January, 2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition so filed by the appellant herein challenging the removal of the petitioner as Pradhan of the Mukundapur Gram Panchayat within the Police Station of Joypur in the District of Purulia.2. The petitioner filed the writ application challenging the notice dated 21st December, 2009 issued by the requisitionists for removal of the petitioner.3. Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that a notice under Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the '1973 Act') was issued on 28th October, 2009. As the writ petitioner failed to convene the meeting, the requisitionists under Section 16 of the 1973 Act called a meeting on 27th November, 2009. The meeting could not be held on 27th November, 2009, instead a notice was issued under Section 12 of th...
State of West Bengal Vs. Md. JamiluddIn Nasir and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Banerjee.J;A. FACTSA.1. INCIDENT ON JANUARY 22, 2002A. 1.1. SCENE - 1At about 6:36 a.m., Calcutta Police Control Room at Lai Bazar received an information of firing in front of American Centre. Control Room immediately asked the Shekespeare Sarani Police Station to proceed to the spot. On investigation it revealed that a group of police personnel was guarding American Centre. The said group was about to complete their night duty and the new group was to take over. During the period when handing over of charge was going on at 6:15 a.m., two persons riding on a Motor Cycle one having a pistol in his hand, driving the Motor Cycle and the pillion rider having Machine Gun being AK-47 model indiscriminately fired at the police party and then fled towards south direction. The entire incident took about five minutes causing casualty to many police personnel and injuring others. One private security guard of American Centre along with one civilian also sustained injury. Eighteen pol...
Sk. JalaluddIn and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2010
Nadira Patherya, J.1. By this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 17-112009.2. The case of the petitioner is that as the majority members of the Panchayat Samity had no confidence in the Sabhapati a requisition was made on 07-102009 to the Sabhapati to convene a meeting for his removal under Section 101 of the 1973 Act. A notice was also given to the prescribed authority. As the Sabhapati failed to convene a meeting, a notice was issued under Section 105 of the 1973 Act on 16-11-2009. At the said meeting held pursuant to notice dated 16-11-2009 the Sabhapati was removed. By a communication dated 17-11-2009 received by the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 sought to intimate the requisitionists that due to non-compliance of Sections 101 and 105 of the 1973 Act no effect can be given to the removal of the Sabhapati. Hence, the instant application has been filed and orders sought.3. Counsel for the State respondent submits that the notice issued is not in proper for...
Raghunath Tibrewal Vs. Ajit Kumar Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-2010
Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order No. 30 dated January 28, 2009 and order No. 32 dated February 18, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Sealdah in Ejectment case No. 30 of 2005. 2. The case of the defendant/petitioner herein is that a suit for Ejectment was instituted against him by the plaintiff/O.P. herein in the learned Court below. The suit was fixed for tendering affidavit-in-chief of the defendant (D.W. 1). On January 28, 2009 the defendant reached the Court at 11.05 A.M. when he found that at about 11.00 A.M. the learned Judge of the Court below closed the evidence of the defendant and fixed a date for argument. Immediately thereafter the defendant filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for recalling the order closing the evidence of the defendant. The learned Judge of the Court below on hearing both sides was pleased to reject the...
Putzmeister Aktingesellchaft Vs. Aquarius Engineers Private Limited an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The myriad hurdles that the defendants initially presented before the substance of the plaintiff's claim in the suit could be assessed have been somewhat removed by the plaintiff having withdrawn a previous suit that it instituted in Goa. The defendants, however, say that notwithstanding their application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of the trial of the present suit having been rendered infructuous, the averments in the petition relating thereto should be taken into account while considering the propriety of making further orders in favour of the plaintiff.2. GA No. 3930 of 2007 is the plaintiff's first interlocutory application in this suit for alleged infringement by the defendants of the registered trademarks of the plaintiff. GA No. 3937 of 2007 is the defendants' application for stay of the suit on the ground that a previous suit, albeit for passing off and not for infringement, had been instituted by the plaintiff against the second ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›