Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1996Cal449
ORDER1. All these writ applications involving common questions of law and factwere taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by'this common judgment.2. The petitioners in all the cases are consumers of electrical energy having obtained electrical connection from the respondent-company but their electrical connection had been disconnected on diverse dates by the Officers of Loss Control Cell of C.E.S.C. Ltd. upon surprise inspections and having allegedly found that the petitioners have indulged in theft or pilferage of electrical energy.3. In some matters, affidavits-in-opposition have been filed by the C.E.S.C. Ltd. where in almost stereo type statements have been made that upon inspection the meter body of the meter installed in the premises of the consumers were found spurious and/or the seals of the service cut out were found missing or the seals on the meter body were found tampered.4. In almost all the cases the petitioners carry on business or trades and their griev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2003)2CALLT556(HC)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 4th April, 1989 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Howrah in L.A. Case No. 57 of 1986. Submission on behalf of the Appellants 2. The claimants/appellants had preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment on various grounds. Mr. S.P. Roychowdhury, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the assessment made by the learned Judge is arbitrary and has been made without considering the expected value of the land as on the date of notification. It has overlooked the potential value of the land. None of the considerations relevant for assessment of valuation of the land has been considered. The situation, size, shape was not taken into account. It has also committed gross error in the valuation of the building, which on record appears to have been constructed 10/15 years before acquisition. The rejection of the valuation report by the valu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Both admiralty suits are actions in rem directed against the same vessel, MV Vinashin Sky. The plaintiffs are different. There are several applications which have been listed and heard. The principal issue raised in both suits is by one Vietnam Shipbuilding Industry Group though the legal status of such entity is unclear and, but for an appellate court order, such entity may not have had a right of audience in the second suit. In the opening paragraph of GA No. 3476 of 2009, which is a petition for dismissal and/or rejection of the plaint relating to the earlier suit, the Vietnamese petitioner has not elaborated on its legal status though the petitioner in claiming that one Vinashin Ocean Shipping Company Ltd is its wholly owned subsidiary, has given an impression that the petitioner is probably a company. The petitioner claims to be a State-owned enterprise of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In the translated version of its certificate of business registration...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2002]108CompCas811(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by C. Mackertich Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and one Bijoy Kumar Kothari, director and shareholder of the petitioner-company (the said company) challenging, inter alia, various communications dated 20-11-2001, dated 26-11-2001 and also dated 5-12-2001 and 10-12-2001. 2. The case of the petitioner is that a notification dated 20-11-2001, was issued by the Mr. D.K. Tyagi, the Custodian appointed under Section 3(1) of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 ('the Act'). 3. From the said notification, it appears that in exercise of power under Section 3(2), the Custodian has notified certain persons and entities andissued a public notice to that effect. In the said list of persons and entities which has been disclosed in this writ petition the name of Shri Ajoy Kayan figures as the proprietor of the petitioner-company. The precise notification against Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2002CriLJ60
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging violation of a judgment and order dated 4-3-99 passed by a Division Bench of Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen [as His Lordship then was] and Justice Dipak Prakash Kundu in MAT No. 339 of 1999.2. From the operative portion of the said judgment it appears that the learned Judges of the Division Bench allowed the appeal and further gave a direction that 'the appellant-petitioner should be treated as in service without any break and he should be paid all consequential benefits in accordance with law within three months from the date of communication of this order'.3. A few relevant facts may be noted. The service of the petitioner, a bus conductor, was terminated, inter alia, on the ground of unauthorized absence. Against the said order, an appeal was filed to the appellate authority under the rules and the appeal was rejected. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed which was numbered as CO. 5274 of 1992. A ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1998)2CALLT351(HC),[1999]97CompCas451(Cal)
A. Kabir, J.1. This combined application under Article 227 of the Constitution, read with sections 24 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been moved with notice to the State Bank of India and has been taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned advocates for the petitioners and the Bank.2. At the very outset the question of maintainability of the application was raised on the ground that the suit pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, could not be transferred to a Civil Court, as prayed for on the petitioners' behalf.3. Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee submitted that in 1995 the petitioner No. 1 filed a suit against Kerata State Electronic Development Corporation, the Opposite Party No. 2 herein, being Money Suit No. 113 of 1995, in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Siliguri, for a decree for a sum of Rs. 21,34,890.20 palse, and the same is still pending adjudication.4. Thereafter, on 8th August, 1996, the State Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2006)1CALLT210(HC),2005(4)CHN146
1. The appellant has filed this application for review of the judgment and decree dated 25* of April, 2003 in FA No. 12 of 2001. Mr. Dasgupta in support of the review application had contended that the Court had overlooked the materials apparent on the face of the record to the extent that the wife had made false and wild disparaging allegations against the spouse, which amounts to cruelty. In support, he relied on Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, 2003(6) SCC 334. He then points out that the learned Court in the judgment had disbelieved the evidence of the appellant/ husband and believed that of the wife on the ground that there was no cross-examination on certain points. Mr. Dasgupta contended that absence of cross-examination does not mean that the evidence was unchallenged. To support this contention, he relied on the decisions in Juwarsingh s/o Bheraji and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1980 (Supp) SCC 417 and P. Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Office...
Tag this Judgment!