Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. On 15th of March, 2007 this Court passed the following order:1(a). In addition to the order passed in this suo motu petition, there shall be a further order in this writ petition in terms of prayer clause '1':1) An interim order restraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 preventing the petitioner organizations other NGOs and voluntary aid organization from reaching Nandigram to provide assistance to injured and deceased villagers.1(b). We further direct the District Administration to ensure that the unclaimed dead bodies are handed over to the appropriate authorities and the identified dead bodies are handed over to the lawful claimants after due legal formalities have been concluded, such as post-mortem and inquest report, so that the relatives are able to perform the last rites of the deceased.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Contempt)In the matter of: The Court on its own Motion1(c). All the newspapers throughout the Nation have today carried as a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Mr.Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Mr.Arijit Banerjee APO360of 2013 CS212of 2013 UCO Bank -Vs.Saumyendra Roy Chaudhury & ORS.For the appellant : Mr.Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Debdutta Sen, Adv.Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.For respondents 5, 6, 7 : Mr.Bimal Chatterjee, Ld Adv.Gen. For respondent No.1 Mr.S.N. Mookherjee, Sr.Adv.: Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Adv.Mr.Siddhartha Sharma, Adv.Mr.Tarun Aich, Adv.Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 18th, 19th and 20th March, Heard on : 2014 Judgment On : 15/05/2014 Arijit Banerjee, J. The rules and regulations of UCO Bank, the appellant herein provided for representation of the share-holders on the Board of Directors of the Bank in the form of share-holder directORS.The decision of the Nomination Committee rejecting the nomination of the respondent No.1 for election to the Board of the Bank in the category of a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT: The Honble Justice Nishita Mhatre And The Honble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty APO315of 2015 WP507of 2012 United Bank of India Retirees Welfare Association & Ors. Appellants Vs. United Bank of India & Ors. Respondents with APO316of 2015 WP507of 2012 United Bank of India & Ors. Appellants Vs. United Bank of India Retirees Welfare Association & Ors. Respondents For the Appellants in APO315of 2015 and Respondents in APO316of 2015 : Mr. Lakshmi Kumar Gupta Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta Mr. Dipankar Dasgupta For the Respondents in APO315of 2015 and Appellants in APO316of 2015 : Mr. R. N. Majumdar Mr. Sourav Chakraborty For Union of India : Mr. Vipul Kundalia Heard on :22. 08.2016 Judgment on :26. 09.2016 Nishita Mhatre, J.:1. These appeals are directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 4th March, 2015 in W.P. 507 of 2012. The Appeal APO No.316 of 2015 has been filed by the United Bank of India (h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)2CALLT283(HC)
K.M. Yusuf, J.1. This is a hotly contested revisional application. The plaintiff-petitioner has moved this Court against the order, dated 14th March, 1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore, in Misc. Appeal No. 630 of 1989 affirming the order, dated 21st December, 1988 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court, Alipore, in T.S. No. 292 of 1988. Both the Courts below concurred in their decisions by not allowing the interim order of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the case briefly are as under :The petitioner instituted a suit, inter alia, for declaration that the defendant-opposite parties Nos. 1 to 13 have no right to function as the Executive Committee of the Hindusthan Lever Sramik Karmachary Congress and the Executive Committee of the petitioner-union representing the majority workers is legally constituted and elected Executive Committee having the authority to represent union and also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Soumen Sen, J. The order dated 22nd July, 2011 passed by the learned 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in T.S.875 of 2011 in connection with application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application. In or about 4th April, 2011, Pilani Investment and Industries Corporation Limited, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pilani’) instituted a suit in the High Court at Calcutta praying for a decree for eviction and for recovery of khas possession of the suit property against Steel Authority of India Limited, (hereinafter referred to as ‘SAIL’). The ‘Pilani’ filed a suit in this Hon’ble High Court wherein it has been averred in paragraph ‘7’ of the plaint that the plaintiff by a notice dated 21st February, 2011 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act duly determined the monthly tenancy of the SAIL with the expiry of the 15 days from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)157CTR(Cal)124
Y.R. MEENA, J.:On reference application, the Tribunal has referred the following question for opinion of this Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs, 13,35,467 is allowable under section 40A(7)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is carrying on business of production and sale of electricity. On 17-7-1975, the electricity undertaking was taken over by Bihar State Electricity Board and all assets, liabilities, etc. vested in the said Board under Bihar Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1979. The compensation money receivable by the assessee- company for such acquisition were not finalised on the date of making assessment. The assessee had claimed the gratuity payable as on 17-7-1975, at Rs. 13,35,467 excluding a sum of Rs. 1, 17,418 which was allowed in the assessment for 1974-75. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that there is a provision for payment of gratuity to the emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal421,[1963(6)FLR378],(1963)IILLJ569Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. These two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were by consent directed to be heard together because they raise the same points of controversy. There is a minor difference between them but that is not very material and I shall deal with that difference later on. 2. The petitioners are drivers employed under the Durgapur Steel Project under the Hindusthan Steel Limited. The first petitioner in Rule No. 4052 of I960 was appointed on the 1st April, 1957 pursuant to an offer made on the 26th March. His services were terminated on the 20th June, 1959. He did not obtain the Rule until as late as 19th September, 1960. The petitioner in the other Rule, Bimal Chandra Majumdar was appointed on the 21st September, 1957 on an offer made on the llth September 1957. His services were terminated on the 14th April, 1959. He did not obtain this Rule until 17th January, 1S61. Delay has been urged as a ground in both the cases on which it has been contended that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1997)1CALLT255(HC)
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated the 12th July, 1989 passed by U.C. Banerjee, J. in suit No. 747 of 1988, by which the learned Judge stayed the said suit and all proceedings thereunder till the final disposal of the complaint case No. 1233 of 1988 and 1488 of 1988 including the Park Street Police Station case No. 455 dated, the 27th July, 1988. The plaintiff company (the appellant herein) filed the said suit on the allegation that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (that is, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein) jointly carried on business as share and stock brokers and that, during the period April, 1984 to April 1985 the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,98,00,000 to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of acquiring shares in various companies and with specific instructions to do so including 3,51,300 shares of the defendant No. 3 (Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.) of the value of Rs. 1,39,34,513 to be purchased in the name of plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1970Cal1
Ray, J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment and order of Mitter. J. dated 27 July and 24 August 1965 discharging the Rule obtained by the appellant.2. The appellant obtained the Rules requiring the respondent to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus should not go to recall, rescind and withdraw the order dated 9 October, 1963 and why a writ of Certiorari should not be issued quashing the order dated 9 October, 1963.3. The appellant's case in short is that the appellant was appointed an insurance medical practitioner under the State of West Bengal by virtue of provisions contained in Employees' State Insurance Act. 1948. The appellant further contended that it was a permanent post under the State Government. On 9 October 1963 a letter was written by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal addressed to the appellant that 'in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-clause (1) of Clause 11 of Schedule I to the West Bengal Employees' State Insurance (Medical Benefit) Rules, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1967Cal80,69CWN864
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of Binayak Nath Banerjee, J. dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and discharging the Rule against the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta.2. The appellant is Kishanlal Agarwalla carrying on business under the name and style of 'Shree Katihar Jewellery' at Katihar in the district of Purnea. A servant and an employee of the appellant by the name of Dharam Chand Jain was going from Katihar to Calcutta. He was following a rather devious route, it being from Katihar by train to Raiganj, thereafter, by bus to Kaliaganj and then he Intended to proceed by bus to Balur-ghat from where he wanted to travel by air to Calcutta. This was the appellant's case.On the journey at Kaliaganj this Dharam Chand Jain was caught red-handed carrying 41 gold bars bearing No. 999.10 and weighing 412 tolas 1 anna and 4 ratis, on the strength of an information, received by the Land Customs Authorities from a source. Dharam Chand...
Tag this Judgment!