Kolkata Court April 2012 Judgments
Babulal Majhi Vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2012
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. This appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner who had claimed compassionate appointment in the place of his deceased father-in-law. The father-in-law was an employee of the Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Colliery’) who died in harness in the month of July, 2009. His widow and two daughters survived him. It appears from the writ petition that the family wanted the employment of the eldest daughter but that was rejected by the Colliery. Then the petitioner as the son-in-law applied. His application too was rejected by the Colliery, but that was unfortunately after an inordinate delay. The ground for rejection was that the widow of the deceased employee was already in employment in the said colliery. As such the application of the petitioner could not be considered. This time the petitioner challenged the rejection. The learned single Judge declined to interfere on twofold grounds. First, the petitioner was the son...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Srikanta Mukherjee Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Soumen Sen, J. The instant application has been filed for review of the judgment dated 1st August, 2007 passed in A.P.O No.2 of 2007. The order under review was passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal of the writ petition being W.P.No.1806 of 2006. The petitioner was an assistant teacher of Scottish Church Collegiate School (Secondary School) (hereinafter referred to as the said school) till he retired from service on 20th November, 2006 on attaining 60 years of age. He joined the said school on 21st February, 1976 and retired on 20th November, 2006. The petitioner challenged the said order of superannuation on 20th November, 2006 on the ground that under the Government Circular dated 22nd March, 2004 he is entitled to continue as such whole time teacher till he attains the age of 65. In order to appreciate the points urged by the petitioner in the review application we may refer to some of the relevant facts which we feel are necessary for decid...
Tag this Judgment!Kalpana Rani Dutta Vs. Concorde Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction instituted by her against the opposite parties. She claims to be the owner of the suit property described in the schedule appended to the plaint, reading as under: “ALL THAT piece and parcel of land being 16 cottahs, 6 chittaks, 36 sq.ft. more or less being a portion of 1.86 satak in Mouza Kasba J.L. No. 13, Dag No. 4175, Khatian No. 1630, within Kolkata Municipal Corporation Ward No. 107, premises No. 30, Rajdanga Nabapally under P.S. Kasba, Kolkata- 107, District- 24 Parganas (S) butted and bounded as follows: On the North : R.S. Dag No. 4186, On the South : Road, On the East: KMC Road, On the West R.S. Dag No. 4166 (P)”. The suit property shall hereafter be referred to as property “A”. 2. The plaint reveals how the petitioner has set up right, title and interest in respect of property “A”. It is alleged that despite she being the owner thereof, the opposite party no.1 wrongfully...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Tele Films Ltd and Another Vs. Saregama India Ltd. and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
Both the plaintiff and the first defendant have preferred two separate appeals against the common judgment and order dated 18th April, 2012 and in connection therewith separate interlocutory applications have been taken out in the appeal themselves. Extensive argument was advanced by all the parties to both the appeals. Since the judgment and order impugned is common we think that one judgment would suffice to dispose of both the appeals. Learned Advocates appearing mutually waive service of notice of appeal. Therefore all formalities are dispensed with. There will be orders in terms of prayer (a) of respective petitions. All undertakings are discharged. Appeal and the application are heard as the learned counsel suggests that it is no use of piecemeal hearing of appeal at a later stage since the appeal has been directed against an ad interim order. In view of this submission and suggestion we proceed to decide the appeals themselves. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Tria...
Tag this Judgment!Gloster Limited Vs. Fort Gloster Industries Limited and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-2012
SANJIB BANERJEE, J. Nearly two decades after the sanction of a scheme of arrangement, the transferee company has come to court complaining of a mistake on the court’Section part in the drawn-up order sanctioning the scheme not specifically including a jute mill that it says stood transferred to and vested in it under the scheme. To boot, the applicant claims that it discovered such mistake consequent upon a recent order passed by this court on a request made by it for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The transferor company is equivocal in its stand, but that may have little impact on how the application is decided. A non-party, which was not involved in the scheme and has not been impleaded by the applicant herein, had obtained leave to intervene in the present proceedings by an order made at an earlier stage. However, the order permitting such non-party to participate in the proceedings was not unreserved; ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Mohan Chandra Karak Vs. Bani Roy and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 11, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Bankura in Title Appeal No.63 of 2004 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated September 30, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Bankura in Title Suit No.121 of 1997. The respondent no.1 instituted a suit being Title Suit No.121 of 1997 for declaration of her right, title and interest in the suit property and that the defendant no.1 has no right, title and interest in the suit property, permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from disturbing the plaintiff’s possession in the suit property and other reliefs. That suit was decreed on contest against the defendant no.1 and ex parte against the rest defendants. Being aggrieved, the defendant no.1 preferred an appeal being Title Appeal 63 of 2004. That appeal was dismissed on contest affirming the judgment and decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bisweswar Ghosh and Others Vs. Sri Rajat Kumar Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
Joymalya Bagchi, J. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 30th June, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur in Civil Revision Case No. 68 of 2001 modifying the order No. 115 dated 14th December, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Midnapore in O.S. No. 151 of 1994. The petitioners being the landlords of the premises filed the suit against the opposite party herein being O.S. No. 151 of 1994 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Midnapore, inter alia, praying for a decree of eviction. The opposite party has filed the written statement in the said suit denying all the allegations. The opposite party filed three applications under Sections 17(1), 17(2) and 17 (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for determination of rate of rent, deposit of arrear rent in Court and also payment of such rent by way of i...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Godha and Others Vs. Universal Paper Mills Ltd and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
The Court: Though this appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 appears to be only another round of skirmish between two opposing groups in a matter pertaining to the control of a company, there are certain other striking features that engage the attention beyond the theatre of conflict between the parties. But to begin with, the disputes between the parties require immediate attention before the other aspect of significant public importance may be alluded to. The appeal is against an order passed by the Principal Bench of the Company Law Board in New Delhi, dismissing proceedings instituted under, inter alia, Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. The appellants were the petitioners before the Company Law Board (CLB) and are distraught at their claim for substantive reliefs failing on a demurrer some four years after the petition was lodged, particularly since the petition had been heard out before a previous chairman of the CLB who demitted office without delivering th...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Technoshop Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
The Court : The moot question that falls for determination in this appeal is: even if whether the alleged overvaluation of a suit can be taken as a defence in an application under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court. A very brief resume of the facts necessary for appreciating the scope of the question is as follows: In the year 1987 by a registered lease of a premises located at the Lindsey Street, Kolkata, measuring about 3,265 square feet the defendant/ appellant became monthly tenant under the plaintiff/ respondent at a monthly rental of Rs. 24,487.50. The lease deed which is annexed to the application for stay was for a period of for five years renewable at the option of the lessee-appellant upon notice to the lessor-plaintiff for a further period of five years on the same terms and conditions, except that the rent would be increased by 15 per cent. The lease deed also provided for a further extension of lease for another five years on the same terms and conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Ps Group Reality Ltd. Another Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-2012
This writ application is filed by the petitioners assailing the annual valuation of premises no.48 Matheswartala Road, Police Station Tangra, Kolkata- 700046 for the period from 2/2008-09. The backdrop of the case is as follows:- The petitioners nos. 1 to 8 are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having their respective registered offices at the addresses given in the cause title of this writ application. The petitioner no.9 is the authorized signatory of the petitioner nos. 1 to 8. The petitioner nos. 1 to 8 purchased premises no.48 Matheswartala Road. P.S. Tangra, Kolkata- 700046(hereinafter referred to as the said premises), being land with structures for consideration of Res.15,06,00,000/- and 1,73,38,358/- by registered deed of conveyance dated July 23, 2008. The petitioners submitted an application dated September 23, 2008 before the competent authority of the respondent no.1 for mutation of the names of the petitioners nos. 1 to 8 in the assessment book of the res...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »