Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-16-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
..... supreme court considered the legality of an order made under section 9(1a) of the madras maintenance of public order act, 1949 on 1st of march, 1950 whereby the entry and circulation of the bombay journal in english called cross roads was barred in the state of madras. it ..... constitution would include right to livelihood....96. from the above observations of supreme court in the judgments quoted above, it becomes patent that the regulation 155(b) would not be protected under article 14 of the constitution of india. in the case of kharak singh ..... was not summoned. the local mp wanted to teach the villagers a lesson. he was always taking a position contrary to the official statements. he even contradicted the statement made by the chief minister, that no land would be acquired. according to ..... ).2. d.n. srivastava, ips v. parthajoy das and ors. reported in 1983 crimes 248 (paras 39, 40, 41, 52, 54 & 55).objection no. 2: even otherwise the direction sought by the petitioner for reference ..... , if necessary i.e., registration and initiation of criminal proceedings, if necessary, in accordance with law.145. we further make it clear that all these steps should be taken by the cbi including such ..... is covered against them by judgment of the supreme court in the case of management of advance insurance co. ltd. v. gurudasmal and ors. reported in : [1970]3scr881 and in the case of kazi lhendup dorji v. central bureau of investigation and ors. reported in : (1994)iillj815sc . thereupon the appeal and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-19-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN538
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This was an appeal against a decree dated 6th April, 2004 passed in the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 3rd Court, Alipore, 24 - Parganas, ex parte. The appellant was unsuccessful in getting the decree set aside by their proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure right up to the Appeal Court. Now the present appeal is preferred against the decree itself.2. It appears from the records the defendants despite having taken time on several occasions to file written statement did not do so, however, the interlocutory application of the plaintiffs for injunction was contested by filing written objection. On 6th April, 2005 an application was made for adjournment of hearing of the suit and, after this prayer having been refused the suit was taken up for hearing. The case made out in the plaint is that the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 and their elder brother Prakash Chandra Gupta, since d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-11-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN238,[2008]141CompCas140(Cal),(2008)1CompLJ416(Cal),[2008]83SCL280(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The primary question raised in these applications under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, is whether the petitioners actively concealed material facts from the annual report of SBI Home Finance Ltd. ('the company') for the financial years ended March 31, 2000 and March 31, 2001. The Registrar of Companies required the petitioners to show cause why penal action under Section 628 read with Section 211 should not be initiated against them. The petitioners have replied to the Registrar's letter of December 31, 2004, but upon apprehension that the Registrar may institute criminal proceedings, have applied to the court seeking to be excused for the offence, if any, committed by them.2. The State Bank of India promoted the company and along with some other banks and financial institutions held the entire paid-up capital of the company. For reasons not necessary to be gone into, the promoter who was in control through its officers as nominated directors of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-10-2007
Reported in : (2007)3CALLT43(HC)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The question raised, as to the jurisdiction of this Court to receive the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is a fallout of the present view that a request to a Chief Justice for a reference to arbitration involves the discharge of functions of judicial nature.2. The parties entered into an agreement on January 31, 2003 for the petitioner to run a bookstore at the respondent's hotel in Bangalore and for the parties to share profits from the bookstore business in addition to the respondent being entitled to a fixed monthly sum. It appears from the correspondence leading up to the respondent's final letter that the respondent was not satisfied with the accounts of the bookstore that it received from the petitioner, the insinuation being that the receipts were underplayed and the expenses overstated so that the payout to the respondent on account of its share of profits would be less. The respondent took the extreme step of de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-08-2007
Reported in : AIR2007Cal260,2008(1)ARBLR83(Cal),(2007)3CALLT424(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 17th September, 2003 passed by a learned single Judge in Execution Case No. 28 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge has granted reliefs in terms of prayers in column 10 of the Tabular Statement enforcing a foreign award under the provisions of Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred in short as the said Act). This appeal was admitted by a judgment and order dated 19th September, 2003 by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Seth and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Sinha (as their Lordships then were) subject to the question of maintainability and preliminary objection. By this order no formal paper book was asked to be filed dispensing with other formalities and treating the application as informal paper book, however, liberty was granted to include additional papers in the informal supplementary pape...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-25-2007
Reported in : [2009]149CompCas433(Cal)
Indira Banerjee, J.1. The main issue involved in these two appeals under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, made by a judge's summons supported by affidavit, is the admissibility of post liquidation claims against a company in liquidation.2. In these two appeals, Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam established under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, being the applicant, has challenged four several notices, all dated January 24, 2006, of the official liquidator, two of which are notices of admission of proof of debts, and the other two notices of rejection of proof of debts.3. By the notices of admission of proof of debts, the official liquidator has admitted the claims of the applicant towards property tax and towards water tax, for the factory premises and staff quarters of the company in liquidation at Ujjain, in part.4. The official liquidator has allowed only Rs. 2,79,955 towards property tax and only Rs. 2,162.20 towards water tax as against a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-09-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN327
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. To save the Trust Property, a Public Charitable Trust has come before this Court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by challenging the illegal termination of the lease by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as KMC) and its demand for possession of the petitioners' leasehold property from the petitioners.2. Admittedly by a registered lease-deed dated 31st May, 1994, KMC demised 19.6 acres of land at J.B.S. Haldane Sarani to the petitioner No. 1 being a Public Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) for a period of 30 years for setting up a craft village in the said premises, on the terms and conditions as contained in the said deed.3. The physical possession of the said premises was handed over by KMC to the said Trust on 28th September, 1997. Subsequently by another Supplementary Indenture dated 9th July, 1999 executed between the KMC and the Trust, it was clarified that an area of 18.11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-05-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN678,[2007]137CompCas834(Cal),(2008)2CompLJ32(Cal),[2008]81SCL140(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Two issues of some importance arise in this the proposed transferee company's petition for sanction of a scheme of amalgamation. The registered offices of the transferor companies are situated in other states and the proposed transferor companies have applied for approval of the scheme from the appropriate High Courts.2. The first issue is as to whether the authorised capital of a transferor company merges into the authorised capital of the transferee company upon the scheme being sanctioned and implemented, along with the rights relating thereto. There are two aspects to such matter: the first, whether following a scheme of amalgamation or complete merger the authorised capital of the transferor company gets added on to the authorised capital of the transferee company so that the post-amalgamation authorised capital of the transferee company swells by the amount of the authorised capital of the transferor company; secondly, whether following such increase of the ...
Tag this Judgment!