Court : Kolkata
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. We are concerned with about sixteen (16) writ petitions challenging the provisions of Clause 9(2)(d) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, (‘the said regulation’ in short) and the consequential Government of West Bengal notification dated November 23, 2011, (‘the said notification’ in short). In Writ Petition No. 1000(w) of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 5125(w) of 2012, the said Clause 9(2)(d) is, specifically, under challenge. However, in the other fourteen (14) writ petitions, the said government notification is under challenge. The Hon’ble Single Judge, by the order impugned, inter alia, held that there was no illegality on part of the Medical Council of India in amending the said regulation of 2000 by inserting Clause 9(2)(d) in the said regulation and, further, held that the said notification of the Government of West Bengal only identified the rural and difficult areas, which was within the domain of the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. Amarendranath Dhar established a business of paper by the name of “Imperial Paper House”. He took his nephew Kamal Kumar Dhar in his business to assist him. His sons were minor, hence he got assistance from his nephew. Amarendranath executed a registered Deed of Gift on August 12, 1961 in favour of Kamal Kumar as also his two sons by which all the three became the owner of the said business that was converted into a partnership. Since then, three partners carried out the business. Pertinent to note, within a few months of such partnership being entered into Amarendranath died leaving him surviving his two sons name above. At that time Rajat was a minor. His interest was being looked after by Kamal Kumar as claimed by him. Kamal Kumar claimed, he arranged marriage of the daughters of Amarendranath out of the business income as also brought up Rajat and Adhar as guardian of the family. According to Kamal Kumar, he was running the show in absence of Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Form not J.(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Shukla Kabir (Sinha) A.P.O.No.384 of 2006 A.P.O.No.385 of 2006 A.P.No.455 of 1998 SMT. RINA DHAR versus SMT. BANI DHAR & ORS.For the Appellants : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.For the Respondent (No.1to5) : Mr.Haradhan Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Amitava Pyne, Advocate Mr.Subhrangshu Dutta, Advocate Mr.Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Advocate For Respondent No.6 Sarder Amjad Ali, Senior Advocate Jishnu Chowdhury, Advocate A.K.Roy, Advocate Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Advocate Satadeep Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr.Siddharta Ruj, Advocate Heard on : Judgment on : September 17, 28 and October 5, 2012 October 11, 2012. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J.Amarendranath Dhar established a business of paper by the name of Imperial Paper House.He took his nephew Kamal Kumar Dhar in his business to assist him. His sons were minor, hence he got assistance from his nephew. Amarendranath ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J. The appellants in this appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 are the respondents in a petition under, inter alia, Sections 397 and 398 of the Act before the Company Law Board (CLB). The first appellant is the concerned company and the other appellants are the persons in apparent control of the first appellant. The appellants claim that though the disputes with the respondents in the proceedings before the CLB have been settled and the respondents’ shares in the appellant company transferred to the nominees of the persons in control of the company, the CLB has declined to dismiss the petition complaining of oppression and mismanagement despite the appellants’ application therefor. At the time that this appeal was received on August 10, 2012, the primary legal issue canvassed by the appellants was that the CLB could not have looked beyond the executed terms of settlement to record that there were other disputes between the parties to the sett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
A.P.O.No.345 of 2011 W.P.No.2106 of 2003 W.P.No.128 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA In Appeal from its Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT: The Honble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND The Honble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL Rai Bahadur G.V.Swaika Estates PVT.LTD.& anr. versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II & ORS.Mr.K.Gooptoo, learned Advocate appears and submits Md.Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appears and submits Judgment on:25. 9.2012. K.J.Sengupta, J.:The instant appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29th March, 2011 by which two writ petitions being W.P.No.2106 of 2003 and W.P.No.128 of 2011 were dismissed. It appears from the records that writ petition being No.2106 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to the fiRs.writ) was filed to challenge the order dated 14th August, 2001 and also the sale notices punished on 8th October, 2003 and 12th October, 2003 in Sanmarg, Ananda Bazar Patrika and Statesman whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 be kept with the record. This revisional application has arisen out of an order passed on May 15, 2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah. The impugned order was passed in connection with an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 are the co-sharers and the Sale Deed executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 is illegal, invalid, collusive and not binding upon the plaintiffs along with other reliefs. The said suit was filed in the year 2006 which has since been re-numbered as Title Suit 31 of 2007. The defendant no. 2 is the mother of the party who is sought to be added under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant no. 2 entered appearance and filed a written statement on May 7, 2007 in which in paragraph 4 she has categorical...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The mandamus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been taken out by one B. Joga Rao, an employee under the respondent no.1, the A and N State Cooperative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society) praying for issuing direction on the respondents to confer his promotion to the post of Manager with retrospective effect from 29.8.2005 maintaining his seniority and, consequently, to the post of Senior Manager w.e.f. 19.01.2010. The petitioner, B. Joga Rao was appointed as Peon in the Society and, in course of time, promoted to the post of Deputy Manager together with some others vide the Office Order No.168 dated 01.5.1998. In the promotion list his position was no.1. Subsequently, amongst 21 incumbents, 7 were conferred with the post of Deputy Managers but the other 14 are the junior to the writ petitioner who were also promoted and posted as Deputy Managers vide an office Order No.354 dated 21.8.1995. In that case also, the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Girish Chandra Gupta, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated 22nd December, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Malda in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2005 corresponding to G.R Case No. 1922 of 2003 arising out of Gazole P.S. Case No. 182 of 2003 dated 13th December, 2003 by which the learned Trial Court acquitted the sole accused of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix has come up in appeal. 2. The facts and circumstances of the case appearing from the written complaint, lodged by the prosecutrix on 13th December 2003, when translated in English would read as follows:- (a) “Sir, I (name withheld by us), daughter of Maqbul Hossain, a permanent resident of the aforesaid address indicated above, most humbly submit that am a student of the Malda College and I am in the 2nd year of the Bengali Honours. In connection with my studies I have to stay in the Malda town at a tenanted house. I was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Subal Baidya, J. This Civil Revisional application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 22.5.2009 by the petitioner/ defendant is directed against the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 2nd Court, Sealdah in Ejectment Case No. 170 of 2006 whereby the learned Civil Judge allowed the application dated 05.12.2007 filed by the O.P./Plaintiff praying for amendment of the plaint of the said Ejectment case. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.04.2009 the petitioner/defendant has filed the instant revisional application before this Court. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner/ defendant and the learned Advocate for the O.P/Plaintiff. Considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates of the both sides including the materials on record and order impugned. Let this court consider the merit of this revisional application in the facts of the instant case. The Plaintiff/O.P herein filed a suit for eviction on 06.07.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated May 23, 1986 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No.748 of 1985 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1985 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.61 of 1980. The plaintiff/appellant herein instituted the Title Suit No.61 of 1980 for ejectment, mesne profits and other reliefs against the defendant/respondent herein from the premises in suit on the ground of efflux of time as provided in Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the plaint case, in short, a registered Deed of Lease for 21 years was executed between the original lessor and the defendant/respondent on March 28, 1959, effective from February 1, 1959 with the option to the lessee to surrender the lease after the expiration of 3 years on giving the lessor a 3 calendar month notice in writing. The said lease deed was registered ...
Tag this Judgment!