Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-27-1998
Reported in : (1999)1CALLT331(HC),1999(1)CHN220
1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decress dated 9.7.96 whereby partial eviction of the tenant defendant was permitted and a reference ordered as to mesne profits. The defendants are the appellants here.2. There is a cross-objection by the plaintiff respondent also and they claim that they are entitled to full eviction. Before us they have also asked for qualification of mesne profits by the court itself.3. The premises in question is 4, Mangoe Lane which is in a very congested office locality of Calcutta. It is not very far from the court premises. Three floors in that building (3rd to 5th) are involved here.4. The plaintiffs are an extremely prosperous company and they have several subsidiaries and controlled companies. They were orginally managing agents but after the abolition of managing agency they joined hands with another group of managing agents. They own and control some 58 tea gardens and their tea empire is large.5. The building in question came up sometime in or abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-05-1998
Reported in : (1999)1CALLT413(HC)
R. Pal, J.1. The facts of the case have been narrated fully in the Judgment of my learned Brother. While concurring with the findings of my learned Brother I wish to add a few words.2. The original ex parte order obtained by the respondent is dated 28th August, 1998. It directed maintenance of status quo and made the application returnable on 1st September, 1998. The appellant was given an opportunity to apply for vacating or modifying the order upon notice to the respondent On 1st September, 1998 the appellant appeared. The order of status quo was directed to continue and directions were given for filing of affidavits.3. The grievance of the respondent before us is that the appellant did not prefer any appeal from the order dated 1st September, 1998 and instead of filing an affidavit in opposition and having the matter heard and disposed of, filed an application for vacating the interim order.4. The application of the appellant was for vacating the ad interim order. By refusing to vac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-28-1998
Reported in : (1999)1CALLT52(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 16.9.97 passed by the learned single Judge of this court (Sujit Kumar Sinha. J) whereby a decree in terms of an arbitration award has been passed. Facts leading to the filing of the appeal arc that the respondent R.C. Banerjee had lodged claims with the arbitrator Shri R.M. Moitra in respect of Contract No. 57 of 1983-84 from the office of the Superintendent Engineer, public Works Department, Northern Circle, Govt of West Bengal, Jalpalgurl. In a detailed speaking Award the said arbitrator awarded an amount of Rs. 25.04.520/- in favour of the respondent by allowing his various claims against the appellants. The arbitrator however had rejected all the counter claims of the appellants. The award was passed along with interest. Including pendentellte Interest. Whereas the principal sum award was Rs. 25.04.520/- the interest calculated was Rs. 34,25,360/-. In the award the arbitrator had also awarded costs of Rs. 60,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-30-1998
Reported in : (1998)2CALLT511(HC),[1999(81)FLR527],(1999)IILLJ66Cal
ORDER It is reported that you have been indulging in several acts of indiscipline affecting the smooth operation of Haldla Refinery Hospital. On 28/6/93 you refused to serve Breakfast to the in-patients of Hospital, when Shri P.C. Das. Cook-cum-Bearer, Emp, No. 71243 was called to prepare Breakfast you obstructed him and did not allow him to enter the kitchen. Due to non-supply of food 3 indoor patients out of 4 had to be discharged from Hospital. After lot of discussions you agreed to supply food but in the process serving of meal was delayed. Again you delayed serving of Breakfast/Lunch to the in-patients of Hospital on 13th July, 14th July, & 15th July, 1993. You have started tampering with the official records related to overtime of employees from 17/3/93. You have falsified your record of overtime as per the details given in the attached statement. Though you have been advised number of times not to do so verbally as well as vide out letter No. PH/F-2/71076 dated 20th October, 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-30-1998
Reported in : (1998)3CALLT348(HC)
P.S. Mishra, C.J.1. I have the privilege to go through the separate but concurring judgments of S.K. Sen, J and S.B.Slnha, J.2. It is indisputable that procedural laws are meant to advance justice and the same must apply to Order 47 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A superior court apart from its power under section 229 read with section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure coupled with its power under Letters Patent as a matter of general policy may frame its procedural rules. This court has framed Original Side Rules as well as Appellate Side Rules of Procedure for civil cases as well as for petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In High Court of Judicature for Rqjasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paltwal, : (1999)ILLJ885SC the Supreme Court has set at rest any controversy as respects power of the Chief Justice to constitute a bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a bench hearing a case. It is pointed out by the Supreme Court that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-15-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Cal317
Barin Ghosh, J.1. The Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, published a tender notice bearing No. 2424 dated 23rd September, 1987, inviting tender for supply of dietary articles to the District Hospital, Malda and to other hospitals in the same District for the period 1-11-97 or any subsequent date till 31-10-98.2. The said tender contained a clause to the effect that the District Diet Committee reserves the right to reject tender without assigning any reason and the decision of the District Diet Committee will be final.3. The petitioner/appellant participated in the said tender in respect of supply of all dietary articles except milk to the District Hospital, Malda 'only.4. On 28-10-97 the tenders were openedwhen rates quoted by different tenderers were not declared. However, on 29-10-97 Chief Medical Officer of Health, Malda, hung up a list of selected tenderers for supply of dietary articles indifferent hospitals in the District of Malda including District Hospital, Malda, furnish...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-14-1998
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
Decided on : Mar-20-1998
Reported in : (1998)2CALLT264(HC)
The Court1. This is an application under section 30 and section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by Steel Authority of india Ltd, (SAIL) against the respondent Macmet india Ltd for setting aside the award passed on October 8, 1996. The award is a speaking award.2. In the instant application it has been urged, firstly, the award should not have been filed in this court since this court has no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the award and the application in the award case, and secondly, the learned Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and thirdly the error of law is apparent on the face of the award.3. For the purpose of ascertaining the question of Jurisdiction it is necessary to consider the facts in short which one set out hereinafter:-4. By a notice dated January 12, 1987, the petitioner invited tenders for design, engineering, manufacturing and supplying of equipments/materials of the 'Cold/Hot Scarifying Machine' for stabbing mills, to be installed at Bokaro Steel Plant, a uni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-07-1998
Reported in : AIR1998Cal162
ORDERShyamal Kumar Sen, J. 1. In the instant election petition the petitioner has challenged the election of Kalimuddin Shams, the respondent No. 1, in 293-Naihati Assembly Constituency and has prayed inter alia for the following declaration (a) A declaration that the purported election of the respondent No. 1 in the said Constituency of 12th West Bengal Legislative Assembly election on 2nd May, 1996 be void, illegal and be declared to be cancelled; (b) A declaration that the purported declaration of result dated9th May, 1996 made by the Returning Officer of the said constituency declaring the respondent No. 1 as duly returned candidate from the said constituency be void and the same be set aside; (c) Further declaration be made that the petitioner who secured second highest valid voles in the said Constituency be elected from the said constituency in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly election held on 2-5-96; (d) An order of in junction be issued against the respondent No. 1 restrai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-13-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD(Cri)924,(1998)2CALLT423(HC),1998(2)CHN81
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this reference, a Division Bench of this court wanted specific observation as to whether section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as code) empowers to grant anticipatory bail by any High Court or Court of Sessions within the country irrespective of the place of commission of an offence. Subsequently, a batch of application under section 438 of the Code had been filed for grant of anticipatory ball. Therefore, all these matters were taken up together for consideration since they raised a common question of law looking to different views taken by this High Court in two Division Bench Judgments and also by a Full Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court. Therefore, they referred to a larger Bench since the view of the Hon'ble Judges was not uniform.2. The factual matrix giving rise to the application for anticipatory ball in C.R.M. 152 of 1998 deserves brief narration.3. The petitioner herein is a business man in an Iron Factory havi...
Tag this Judgment!