Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-14-1988
Reported in : (1988)2CALLT281(HC),92CWN1092
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. A preliminary mortgage decree for sale was passed against the defendant-appellant which has thereafter been made final and the aggrieved defendant has filed this appeal. The defendant-appellant, having preferred no appeal against the preliminary decree, can not obviously challenge the correctness of the said preliminary decree in this appeal against the final decree in view of the provisions of Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant has not also attempted to do so. All that she has urged in support of the appeal is that the Trial Judge was wrong in making the preliminary decree final rejecting the defendant-appellant's application under Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 on the erroneous impression that the provisions of that Act can not be invoked after the passage of the preliminary decree.2. The defendant-appellant attempted to resist the passing of the final decree by an application invoking the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-29-1988
Reported in : (1988)IILLJ495Cal
Baboo Lall Jain, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. from the judgment of PC. Borooah, J. delivered on August 25th, 1982, pursuant to the application made by Amalendu Gupta and others. The said Amalendu Gupta and Ors. made an application under Article 226 of Constitution of India inter alia praying that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued, directing Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter also referred to for the sake of brevity as 'LIC') to cancel the circulars and/or orders dated 16th April 1981 and 23rd April 1981 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, LIC Calcutta Divisional Office. The said Amalendu Gupta and Ors. (hereinafter also referred to as 'employees') also prayed that the LIC be directed to refund and/or restore 14 days' wages and allowances deducted by the LIC from the April, 1981 salaries of the Class III and Class IV employees of the LIC. A rule was issued pursuant to the said application and affidavits were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-12-1988
Reported in : AIR1989Cal40
..... section 3, banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) act, 1970 (5 of 1970); (e) the industrial finance corporation of india, established under the industrial finance corporation act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the life insurance corporation of india, established under the life insurance corporation act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the unit trust of india, established under the. unit trust of india act, 1963 (52 of 1963), the industrial development bank of india act, 1964 (18 of 1964), the industrial credit and investment corporation of india, the industrial reconstruction corporation ..... fordistribution of assets to the beneficiaries. thelegal ownership did not vest on the petitioner-bank. it was merely functioning as an executorof a will and not or as a bank as that of abanking institution as contemplated under section 24 of the act of 1976. the exemptiongranted under section 19 is applicable to the landwhen the state bank of india held the land asowner and not on behalf of certain otherlegatees and as such the bank was not entitledto obtain the benefit of the exemption undersection 19. the bank had ..... weeks from date. however, during the period of stay, there will be an order of injunction restraining the bank from disposing of and/or transferring or in any way alienating the property in question.43. all parties concerned to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative portion of the judgment and order made herein on the usual undertaking.satyabrata mitra, j. 44. i agree.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-22-1988
Reported in : 1989(22)ECC16,1991(55)ELT518(Cal)
Manashnath Roy, Actg. C.J.1. Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), empowers the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, any High Court, to make Rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act, for any matter relating to its procedure and in terms thereof, our High Court in exercise of such powers and also in exercise of its powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, framed Rules regulating to procedure, in Contempt of Court matters itself or of a Court subordinate to it and those Rules (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), came into force on and from 1st September, 1975, on incorporation under Notification No. 10171-G dated 2nd Aug. 1975 and the same was published in the issues of the Calcutta Gazette dated 18th September, 1975.2. In this appeal which was presented on 23rd June, 1988, against orders dated 1st June, 1987 and 21st June, 1988 as made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in an application f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-04-1988
Reported in : (1990)ILLJ148Cal
Dipak Kumar Sen, Actg. C.J. 1. The material facts and proceedings leading up to this appeal are, inter alia, that Subhas Chandra Bose and others, the appellants before us, are either proprietors of firms, or partnership firms or limited companies or partners or managing directors respectively of such partnership firms or companies. The appellants carry on the business of electrical installations in the State of West Bengal as independent contractors holding licences from the Government of West Bengal for carrying on such business. Under several and separate contracts entered into by and between the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation (India) Limited, the respondent No. 4 on the one hand, and the appellants individually, on the other, the appellants have been and still are carrying on the work of erection of over-head electric lines or laying underground cables under public roads and repair and maintenance of the aforesaid.The appellants do not own or run any factory or establishment a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-02-1988
Reported in : (1988)2CALLT73(HC)
J.N. Hore, J.1. This is an application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing the proceeding in case No. C/206/81 under Section 304A/114 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta.2. Pradeep Kr. Rampuria, the only son of opposite party No. 1 Shri Manak Chand Rampuria, who was suffering from toothache was admitted into Bellevue Clinic on 15-5-77 for a minor operation. Some time after operation Pradeep unfortunately died due to cardiac arrest as a result of tracheal aspiration. On October 15, 1977 about 5 months after the occurrence, opposite party No. 1 Manak Chand Rampuria filed a petition of complaint under Section 304A/114, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners alleging that on May 15, 1977 the petitioners caused the death of Pradeep Kumar Rampuria by rash and negligent act in the operation theatre of Bellevue Clinic and aided and abetted each other in the commission of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-13-1988
Reported in : AIR1988Cal410
Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated February 24, 1988 passed by a learned Judge of this Court disposing of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Undisputed facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as under.2. The Late Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad, the great freedom fighter and Statesman, had during his lifetime dictated notes of his varied experiences to Professor Humayun Kabir, the eminent educationist, as to show how India had attained freedom and the part played by him and other leaders in the struggle for freedom. On the basis of the above notes Prof. Kabir composed a book which was approved by Moulana Azad. He (Moulana Azad) however felt that some thirty pages of the book dealing with incidents and reflections of a personal character should not be published for the time being. He therefore directed that a copy each of the completed text should be deposited under sealed cover in the National Archives, New De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-02-1988
Reported in : (1989)2CALLT143(HC)
Monoranjan Mallick, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment of a premises tenant being the United Bank of India and for mesne profits.The suit was originally filed by Cooke and Kelvey Private Ltd. claiming to be the owner of the premises No. 20, Old Court House Street, Calcutta on the ground of reasonable requirement, for illegal transfer/assignment/ sub-letting, for violation by the tenant and the alleged transferee/assignee/ sub-tenant of provisions of (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and for causing annoyance and nuisance of the plaintiff and other tenants.3. As during the pendency of this suit a scheme of arrangement amongst Cooke and Kelvey Private Ltd., Cooke and Kelvey (Delhi) Private Ltd. and Cooke and Kelvey Properties Private Ltd. was duly approved by the High Court, Calcutta by its order dated March 25, 1986 as modified and/or corrected by two subsequent orders-respectively dated August 12, 1986 and December 24, 1986 the light, title and interest of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-01-1988
Reported in : [1991]71CompCas300(Cal),93CWN134
Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J. 1. The petitioners in this writ application challenged the validity of the show-cause notice dated March 13, 1987, and June 24, 1987, as also the order dated November 13, 1987, passed by the Company Law. Board, Ministry of Industry, Government of India, New Delhi, under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 (referred to as 'the said Act'). By the show-cause notice dated March 13, 1987, which is annexure 'A' to the petition, the petitioner, Peerless General Finance and Investment Co, Ltd., was directed to show cause why the Government directors should not be appointed in the company under Section 408(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the ground that it had come to the notice of the board that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in their judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3563 of 1986, Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., [1987] 61 Comp Cas 663 had made some observations for which the action under Section 408 of the said Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-21-1988
Reported in : [1989]176ITR225(Cal)
Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. Mr Mihir Bhattacharyya is directed to appear for the Income-tax Department as he has been appearing in all the matters. The Federation of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class-I Officers' Association (Eastern Zone Council) is added as party respondent. The order passed herein shall also apply to the members of the federation and Mr. Ghose appears for the Insurance Company.2. Let the amendment be effected within a week from date, but no reverifi-cation of the petition will be necessary.3. In view of the judgment delivered on March 17, 1988, in Matter No. Nil of 1988 (Syndicate Bank Officers' Association v. Union of India-- : [1989]176ITR223(Cal) ), this application is allowed.4. The insurance company is restrained from deducting any tax on city compensatory allowance or any allowance in the nature of city compensatory allowance. Whatever tax has already been deducted during the financial year 1987-88 from the salaries of the officers and staff of the insur...
Tag this Judgment!