Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-16-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
..... bengal and anr. with other cases, reported in 1979(2) clj 150 (para 15). the jurisdiction under sections 5 and 6 of the delhi police act has been extended to the whole of india by notifications dated 6 ..... 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 ..... t statutory prohibition against compounding of certain class of serious offences, in which larger social interests and social security are involved, is based on broader and fundamental considerations of public policy. but all statutory prohibitions need not ..... 3. kashmeri devi v. delhi administration and anr. reported in air 1988 sc 1223 (paras 6 & 7).39. in this case the officers have admitted that there was lack of faith at the time when the police action was initiated. the ..... 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 ..... for failure to comply with the requirements of section 25f of the industrial disputes act such termination orders cannot be sustained. the impugned orders are accordingly quashed and the writ petitions are allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.(e.s).(emphasis supplied) .....
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-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 : Dec-14-2007
Reported in : (2008)3CALLT530(HC),2008(4)CHN243
Surinder Singh Nijar, C.J.1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the order passed by Hon'ble Justice Amitava Lala dated 6th of January, 2005 in C.R. No. 10289{W) of 1983.2. We may briefly notice the relevant facts. The respondent No. 1, Hall &, Anderson Ltd. a Company registered under the Companies Act and having its registered office at 33A, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta-16. claims to be the absolute owner of the land and building known as Hall & Anderson building situate at the aforesaid address. The site area is approximately 5 bighas, 11 cottahs, 5 chittaks and 14 sq. ft. The property is situated in the heart of the sophisticated commercial place in the city of Calcutta (Kolkata). The respondent No. 1 was incorporated as a Company under the Companies Act, 1913 on 8th of November, 1946. The Company carried on multifarious business activities. Some of the objects of the Company, as set out in the Memorandum of Association and which have been set out i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-15-2007
Reported in : 2008(1)CHN697
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 31Bt March, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Burdwan, in Misc. Case No. 82 of 1992 refusing to set aside an award passed by Mr. K. Ramaiya.2. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows:By an intent dated 25/28th July, 1983 the work of construction of 40 units of 600 sq.ft. double storied house, in the C & B Zone at Durgapur Steel Township at an estimated contract value of Rs. 24,93,718.10 paisa, was awarded to the respondent by the appellant. The time granted for completion of the work was one year. According to the respondent the appellant failed to perform its reciprocal obligations. As a result the respondent was compelled to rescind the contract by a notice dated 30th September, 1985. The respondent thereafter preferred claim on various grounds including payment for the work done, refund of security deposit and damages. The appellant failed and ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-15-2007
Reported in : 2008(2)CHN165
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. Facts of the case are briefly as follows:The appellants (Smt. Bani Basu and Ors.) filed title suit No. 2 of 1983 in the Court of the learned 5th Assistant District Judge at Alipore, 24-Parganas against the defendants in the said suit including the respondents herein praying inter alia for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the said defendants from interfering with the appellants' possession in the suit property and also restraining the said defendants from making any construction on the suit property or from wasting, damaging or alienating any part of the suit property or from changing the character thereof, a decree for mandatory injunction directing the said defendants to remove themselves from the suit property and also decree for possession. The description of the suit property given in the plaint is as follows:Premises on 106, B.T. Road, P.S. Baranagar, 24-Parganas, containing an area of abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-08-2007
Reported in : (2008)1CompLJ314(Cal),[2008]84SCL239(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The official liquidator seeks eviction of a lessee at a property of the company in liquidation in Hyderabad. A letter for directions to such effect has been filed. The lessee has filed affidavits and has attempted to resist the order sought.2. Prudential Capital Markets Ltd. (now in liquidation) was permitted by its memorandum to carry on investment business. In 1997 it applied under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, for issuance of a certificate of registration as a non-banking financial company as defined by Section 45-I(f) of the 1934 Act. On 29 September 1997, the Reserve Bank prohibited the company from accepting any deposit from any person whether by way of renewal or otherwise and the company was further directed not to sell, transfer, create any charge or mortgage or deal with its property or assets in any manner without the prior written permission of the Reserve Bank except for the purpose of repayment of the deposits held by the company on maturity. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-21-2007
Reported in : AIR2008Cal1,2008(2)CHN18
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. I have had the benefit of going through a draft judgment of my learned Brother. While agreeing with His Lordship's findings and decision I want to add few words of my own which are as follows:In this case what should be the stamp duty payable on a conveyance for a transfer of unexpired period of leasehold interest is to be adjudged. Here, is a case of assignment and not by way of underlease. Under the provision of the amended provision of the Act, the market value of the property, as rightly submitted by Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Amicus Curiae in this case, should be the value of the right to enjoy unexpired period of leasehold interest, as opposed to absolute ownership of the property. It would be unfair to equate the proprietary interest of a property with a right to enjoy unexpired period of leasehold interest for imposition of the stamp duty. It should be adjudged on the market valuation of unexpired period of leasehold interest acquired by the a...
Tag this Judgment!