Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE GA2791of 2017 WITH CS247of 2010 KANAK PROJECTS LIMITED VS STEWARTS & LLOYDS OF INDIA LIMITED BEFORE : THE HONBLE JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI SEPTEMBER112017 Mr.Deb Nath Ghosh, Adv.Mr.Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv.Ms.Samanwita RoyChowdhury, Adv. for the plaintiff/respondent Mr.Ritabrata Mitra, Adv.Mr.Sidhartha Sharma, Adv.Ms.Namrata Basu, Adv. for the defendant/applicant The Court :- This G.A.No.2791 of 2017 has been filed by the defendant in a suit for recovery of khas possession and for mesne profit, praying for stay of all further proceedings in C.S.No.247 of 2010 on the ground that an insolvency proceeding has started under Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code).Although, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed to the application filed by the defendant/petitioner. Mr.Deb Nath Ghosh, Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent submits that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Dipankar Datta, J. 1. These two revisional applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been heard together, since common questions of law and fact are involved. This common judgment shall govern both the revisional applications. 2. The two petitioners were proceeded against separately under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereafter the Act) for unauthorized occupation of public premises. The Estate Officer arrived at the conclusion that they were in unauthorized occupation of public premises and, accordingly, passed separate orders dated November 22, 2010 directing their eviction from the respective public premises which they were occupying. The orders of eviction were challenged by the petitioners by preferring separate appeals under Section 9 of the Act. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair (being the appellate authority) by separate but identical judgment and order dated October 31, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated June 21, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Third Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.128 of 2004 thereby directing the plaintiffs to file the original rent receipts. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted the said suit being Title Suit No.128 of 2004 praying for a decree of eviction on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, sub-letting, addition, alteration and etc. against the defendant/opposite party before the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Third Court, Howrah. 2. The defendant/petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. After appearance, the defendant filed an application under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act was disposed of by the learned Trial Judge and then a revision application was preferred by the petitioner. That revision a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
1. The above appeal was admitted by an order dated 16th September 2009 on the following questions of law.1. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law inasmuch as it adopted a wholly erroneous approach in interpreting the provisions of subsections (2) and (5) of section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in denying the assessees claim for exemption from tax under section 10A of the said Act in respect of the profits and gains of Rs.19,99,084/-, derived by her new industrial undertaking, set up at Falta Free Trade Zone, during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2005-06, and, in that view of the matter, in arbitrarily reversing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XIX, Kolkata, whereby such exemption was allowed? 2. Whether on a correct interpretation of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal substantially erred in law in holding that the assessee shifted/transferred her existing business from Non-SEZ Area to Falta Free Trade Z...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. A preliminary point has been taken by the company to ward off admission of this creditor's winding-up petition. The company says that Section 32 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 gives the company a special status and such provision, by virtue of Section 28 of the said Act, has overriding effect over the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 which is the general statute. The company maintains that without previous leave being obtained from the Central Government under Section 32 of the 1973 Act, the petitioner could not have launched the present proceedings.2. The petitioner has carried an ex parte decree of the City Civil Court and says that upon the company's failure to discharge such decretal debt, the company is liable to be wound up. A notice under Section 434 of the Companies Act has been issued on behalf of the petitioner and received by the company.3. The company asserts that it is a mining company within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the 1973...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. On 15th of March, 2007 this Court passed the following order:1(a). In addition to the order passed in this suo motu petition, there shall be a further order in this writ petition in terms of prayer clause '1':1) An interim order restraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 preventing the petitioner organizations other NGOs and voluntary aid organization from reaching Nandigram to provide assistance to injured and deceased villagers.1(b). We further direct the District Administration to ensure that the unclaimed dead bodies are handed over to the appropriate authorities and the identified dead bodies are handed over to the lawful claimants after due legal formalities have been concluded, such as post-mortem and inquest report, so that the relatives are able to perform the last rites of the deceased.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Contempt)In the matter of: The Court on its own Motion1(c). All the newspapers throughout the Nation have today carried as a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN772
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, A.C.J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of unsuccessful writ petitioners and is directed against the order dated September 10, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writ application filed by the appellants in which the appellants challenged a notice of requisition of the removal of a Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat by relying upon the second proviso to Section 12 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 on the ground that such requisition having been initiated within one year from his election, the same was invalid.2. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned herein refused to accept the contention of the appellants in view of the two decisions of a Division Bench of this Court, one, in the case of Eunas Ali Molla v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1997 WBLR (Cal) 275 and the other, in the case of Muslakim Hossain v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1997(2) CHN 180. In the said decision o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(2)CHN13,[2006(110)FLR136],(2006)IIILLJ84Cal
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. The jurisdiction of the appropriate Government to refer a dispute relating to proposed shifting of Soorah Jute Mill from 102, Narkeldanga Main Road, Kolkata to Birlapur, 24-Parganas (South) to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has been challenged in this writ petition.2. Incidentally an order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal prohibiting the continuance of suspension, i.e., lockout in the said unit of the said company, has also been challenged in this writ petition.3. Soorah Jute Mill which is one of the oldest mills in the jute industry is in existence for more than 100 years at premises No. 102, Narkeldanga Main Road, Kolkata-700054. The petitioner has another jute mill, viz., Birla Jute Mill which was set up at Birlapur, 24-Parganas (S), West Bengal in 1919. For ensuring economic viability of the mills, the petitioner company decided to shift the Soorah Mill from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(2)CHN315,(2004)IIILLJ442Cal
P.K. Biswas, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Single Bench of this Court dated 16th January, 2004, whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ application being No. 046 of 2003.2. The short facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under :The petitioner/appellant filed a writ application challenging an order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration which was signed by one Shri P.K. Minz, Assistant Secretary (Labour). By the said order the Development Officer, Rubber Board, was informed that the permission for retrenchment of its 52 permanent workers and 6 casual labourers were not granted by the competent authority. It has also been alleged by the petitioner/ appellant that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner and without taking note of the relevant facts and as such, the order impugned is patently illegal and violative of the principal of natural justice, sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)71TTJ(Cal)973
ORDERPramod Kumar, A.M. :These three appeals, filed by the revenue, are directed against three separate but identical orders dated 24-6-1994, passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), Calcutta VI in the matter of assessment orders under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the assessment year 1991-92, in the cases of General Electric Company Plc. UK, English Electric Company Ltd., UK and Associated Electrical Industries Ltd., UK. The issue in all these appeals relates to one common transaction, material facts in respect of these appeals are identical, common submissions were made at the assessment and appellate stages, and, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. Respondent-assessees have also filed cross-objections in all the cases and these cross-objections are also being taken up together with the appeals.2. The revenue has raised as many as six grounds of appeal but t...
Tag this Judgment!