Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1973Cal450,77CWN711
ORDERAnil Kumar Sen, J.1. A summons under Section 12 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (Act 54 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the said Act) issued on April 14, 1972 by the Monopolies and the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the said Commission) and an order dated May 12, 1972 passed by the said Commission are the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition.2. M/s. Keshoram Industries and Cotton Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as Keshoram Industries) applied for Central Government's approval under Section 22(2) of the said Act to a proposal for the establishment of a factory at Patan, District Sikar in the State of Rajasthan for the manufacture of cement. Central Government made a reference under Section 22(3)(b) of the said Act to the said commission to make necessary inquiries and report its opinion such application. On February 4, 1971 the said commission issued a notification inviting informations from all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN E.C.No.1 of 2017 Braithwaite Burn & Jessop Construction Co.LTD.Versus Indo Wagon Engineering LTD.For the Petitioner : Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.S.N.Mukherjee, Sr.Adv., Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr.Adv., Subhankar Nag, Adv., Ashit De, Adv.For the Respondent : Mr.Anirban Roy, Adv., Mr.Chayan Gupta, Adv., Ms.Farnaz Nasim, Adv.Hearing concluded on : 13.06.2017 Judgment On : 28.06.2017 Soumen Sen, J.: The petitioner has filed an application for execution of an award dated 11th September, 2015. In column 4 of the tabular statement the petitioner has disclosed that the judgment debtor has filed an application for setting aside of the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment debtor appears and resists the execution of the award on the ground that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending. The judgment debtor c...
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
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
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. :1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 28th September, 2011. The appellants have challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and the rules framed thereunder before the Hon’ble Single Judge and prayed for a declaration that the said Act and all consequences following from the Act is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and/or void. A writ of certiorari is prayed for calling upon the Respondents to produce all Records including documents and/or decision of and/or Records of State Government in connection therewith.2. The grounds for assailing the said Act the writ petitioner put forwarded the grounds are that the said Act of 2011 is a colourable piece of legislation and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution of India and violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.3. It is further stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 28th September, 2011. The appellants have challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and the rules framed thereunder before the Hon’ble Single Judge and prayed for a declaration that the said Act and all consequences following from the Act is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and/or void. A writ of certiorari is prayed for calling upon the Respondents to produce all Records including documents and/or decision of and/or Records of State Government in connection therewith. 2. The grounds for assailing the said Act the writ petitioner put forwarded the grounds are that the said Act of 2011 is a colourable piece of legislation and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution of India and violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is further stated tha...
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 : 2012(3)LLN199(DB)
PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting and important question in relation to the definition of “appropriate Government” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The principal question which arises in this appeal for consideration is whether Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited (in short GRSE) is an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government within the meaning of 2 (a) (i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as follows :- “2(a). “appropriate Government” means- (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning [a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
SANJIB BANERJEE, J. Years of waiting to be paid its dues and the perceived daylight robbery in the company have prompted this petitioning-creditor to seek the immediate appointment of a provisional liquidator over the company even as the matter as to whether the company should be wound up is pending consideration. The petitioning-creditor asserts that if there is any modicum of corporate decency that the law in this country recognises and there is any meaning left to the principle of rule of law, there cannot be any second thoughts on its immediate prayer. The petitioning-creditor says that the conduct of those in management of the company makes a mockery of the process of law and exhorts the court to not merely sit by and endorse the alleged corrupt practices indulged in by the management. As in every case under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 1956, the basis of the petitioning-creditor’s claim has first to be, prima facie, assessed and then the other grounds looked into. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CA No.34 of 2012 CP No.13 of 2009 IN THE MATTER OF: DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND MADURA COATS LIMITED For the Petitioning-Creditor: Mr Ravi Kapur, Adv., Ms Manju Bhuteria, Adv., Mr R. Medora, Adv., Mr M. Mukherjee, Adv., Mr Arijit Law, Adv., Mr B.M.Sharma, Adv.For the Company: Mr Utpal Bose, Adv., Mr D.N.Sharma, Adv., Mr A. Chowdhury, Adv., Ms Debjani Chatterjee, Adv.Hearing concluded on: March 20, 2012. BEFORE The Honble Justice SANJIB BANERJEE Date: March 26, 2012. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : Years of waiting to be paid its dues and the perceived daylight robbery in the company have prompted this petitioning-creditor to seek the immediate appointment of a provisional liquidator over the company even as the matter as to whether the company should be wound up is pending consideration. The petitioning-creditor asserts that if there is any modicum of corporate decency that the law in this country recognises and there is any meaning left to the p...
Tag this Judgment!