Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-05-2001
Reported in : (2001)2CALLT562(HC),2001(2)CHN57
a. kabir, j.1. the respondent nos. 1 to 4 in this appeal are assignees of alease-hold interest is respect of a plot of land measuring 3 cottahs 13 chittacks and 31 square feet, being plot no.7 of calcutta improvement scheme no. lxiv.2. the lease in respect of the aforesaid plot was initially granted by the trustees for the improvement of calcutta in favour of one ajit kumar hazra, dwijendra nath hazra and amar nath hazra on 18th june. 1962 for a period of 99 years with option of renewal for a further period of 99 years on various terms and conditions.3. one of the covenants made by the lessees and to be performed by them is as follows:'6. not to assign or transfer in any way or to mortgage the said land without the previous consent in writing of the chairman of the board.'4. the less or on its part made several covenants to be performed by it. including the following :'2. that the board will on the written request of the lessee made three months before the expiration of the term hereby created and if there shall not at the time of such request be any existing breach of non-observance of any of the convenience on the lessee grant to him a lease of the saidland for the further of 99 years from the expiration of the said term at the same rent and containing the like covenants and provisions as are herein contained with the exception of the present covenant for renewal.'5. ajit kumar hazra died intestate on 22nd october, 1969 leaving behind him surviving his widow, smt. protiva .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-22-2001
Reported in : (2001)2CALLT114(HC)
subhro kamal mukherjee, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated august 8, 1981 passed by the learned additional district judge, second court at krishnanagar, district: nadia in title appeal no. 13 of 1981 affirming the judgment and decree dated december 20, 1980 passed by the learned munsif, additional court at krishnanagar, district: nadia in title suit no. 116 of 1980.2. on or about august 23, 1975 the plaintiff/appellant instituted the present suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction alleging that the suit property originally belonged to brindaban chakraborty who executed a deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1954. the possession was, also, delivered in favour of the plaintiff. since the date of acceptance of the gift, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and in the recent survey operations his name was duly recorded in respect of the premises in suit and khatians were finally published. the plaintiff is paying rent to the government up-to-date. however, the state initiated a proceeding under section 5a of the west bengal estates acquisition act, 1953 and the revenue officer held that the deed of gift was not bonafided. although a civil rule was issued on an application under article 226 of the constitution of india, but the civil rule no. 198(w) of 1970 was discharged on july 9, 1973 without, however, prejudice to any other right of the plaintiff to challenge the proceeding in other forum. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-25-2001
Reported in : (2002)1CALLT200(HC)
d.k. seth, j.1. the petitioners have challenged the order passed on 20th november, 1990, though a letter forwarding the said order has been annexed in the writ petition but the order has not been annexed. however, learned counsel for the petitioners produces a copy of the said order and contends that it was an accident due to which the order was not annexed. according to him, the petitioners are transferee from the original allottees. in the deed of lease executed in favour of the original allottees, it did not contain any clause prohibiting transfer. therefore, there is no earthly reason for refusal of mutation. he has also relied on the various subsequent orders passed by this court directing the respondents to consider such question and after considering such question the respondents did not allow mutation. he has also relied on a decision in the case of smt. ajanta basu v. state of west bengal and ors. reported in : air1996cal309 by a learned single judge of this court in support of his contention. therefore, according to him the respondents should be directed to reconsider the same having regard to the decision cited by him.2. mr. manick ch. das. learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that the order was passed in november, 1990 and as such simply on the ground of delay, this petition should be thrown out, particularly in the absence of any explanation therefor. he then contends that the decision was rendered at a point of time when these judgments or orders .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-28-2001
Reported in : AIR2002Cal16
bhaskar bhattacharya, j.1. this second appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated may 30, 1990 passed by the learned assistant district judge, 1st court, howrah in title appeal no. 178 of 1989 thereby reversing those dated june 29, 1989 passed by the learned munsif, 4th court, howrah in title suit no. 78 of 1985.2. the appellant herein filed a suit in the 3rd court of learned munsif, howrah being title suit no. 11 of 1985 which was transferred to the 4th court of munsif, howrah and was re-numbered as title suit no. 78 of 1985.3. in the suit, the appellant prayed for a decree for declaration that b schedule property was a separate unit and holding and the respondent nos. 1 and l(a) were liable to make construction on c schedule property by leaving side and rare space as per rule of howrah municipal corporation and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent no. 1 series from making any construction on the c schedule properly and restraining the respondent no. 2 from giving any final sanction to the building plan in respect of the said property. in the saidsuit the appellant also prayed for decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondent no. 1 series to restore the property to its previous position.4. there is no dispute that the c schedule suit property which is a vacant piece of land measuring 5/25 as shown in the sketch map annexed to the plaint was originally a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-31-2001
Reported in : (2001)3CALLT83(HC),2001(3)CHN352,2002(79)ECC415,2001(134)ELT337(Cal)
1. the question that falls for determination in this writ application under article 226 of the constitution of india is whether theauthorities concerned were justified in classifying 'necktie' exported by the writ petitioner as 'made-up articles' thereby placing it under heading no, 6203(c) of drawback table.2. the fact giving rise to the instant writ application may be summarized thus:the petitioner exported two consignments of gents' 'necktie' with full length made of polyester fabric with different prints and designs made of woven fabric. after exporting such goods, the petitioner filed a drawback claim aggregated rs. 39,18,241/-. the petitioner however classified the goods under coverage of heading no. 6204 on the ground that necktie is a species of readymade garments. on july 7, 1997 the petitioner received a notice asking it to explain why draw back rate should not be granted under heading no, 6203 of drawback table which deals with made up articles. ultimately, by order date january 12, 1998 the assistant commissioner of customs held that necktie comes within category 6203(c).3. being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the commissioner of customs (appeal) but such appeal was dismissed. the petitioner then preferred a revisional application before central government under section 129(dd) of the customs act. but by the order impugned herein the revisional authority has rejected such application thereby affirming the orders passed by the authorities .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-03-2001
Reported in : 115CompCas452(Cal)
orders.k. mukherjee, j.1. this appeal is directed against the order dated 5-5-1998 passed by a learned single judge of this court inter alia, rejecting an application for an order directing restoration of possession of the disputed premises to the appellants herein.2. the facts leading to the case may be summarised as under :on or about 31-10-1959 a deed of lease was executed by the daws in favour of one haradhan dutta, who was carrying on business under the name and style of a. coomer & company. the demised premises was about 16 cottahs, 10 chittacks and 35 square feet of land being a portion of premises no. 242, jessore road of south dum dum municipality and presently recorded as premises nos. 84, 85 and 86, sarat chatterjee road. the lease was for a period of 25 years with effect from nov., 1959 and ending with oct., 1984. the important clauses of the said lease are as under:-- '(a)... lessee's covenant :4. they will use the demised premises for running factory and/or their office purpose only and not for any other purpose and for this purpose they will be at liberty to erect or build necessary structures on the demised premises according to building rules, factory rules and all other law of land.7. they will at the expiration or sooner determination of the said lease peaceably and quitely surrender the demised premises in the same condition is now, together with all such erections or building and or all such fixtures there or as may be thereon, provided the lessors be .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-31-2001
Reported in : (2002)3CALLT260(HC)
asit kumar bisi, j.1. the instant revisional application under section, 401 and 482 of the code of criminal procedure has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.4.2000 passed by the learned judicial magistrate, 2nd court, barasat, in m. ex. case no. 50 of 97. by the impugned order the learned court below rejected the petition under section 5 of the limitation act and the petition under section 126(2) of the code of criminal procedure filed by the present petitioner who figures as opposite party in the said case before the learned magistrate.2. the facts anterior to the filing of the revision application may briefly be narrated as follows:-the present o.p. no. 1 wife filed the petition under section 125 of the criminal procedure code claiming maintenance before the learned court below. the said maintenance case was ultimately heard ex-parte and by the order dated 3.6.97 passed in m. cases no. 169 of 1995, maintenance was awarded at the rate of rs. 800/- (rupees eight hundred) per month in favour of the wife and rs. 350/- (rupees three hundred fifty) per month in favour of her minor son with effect from the date of filing of the petition. since the husband did not take any step for payment of maintenance in terms of the order of the court, the execution case being m. ex case no. 50 of 1997 was initiated by the wife against the husband in the court below for realisation of arrears of maintenance. it is at that stage the husband moved the learned court below .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-02-2001
Reported in : (2002)2CALLT390(HC)
s.k. mukherjee, j.1. this is a revisional application under section 115 of the code of civil procedure by the plaintiff/petitioner against an order passed by shrimati b. roy, learned assistant district judge, seventh court at alipore, district : 24 parganas (south) in title suit no. 84 of 1991 whereby the learned judge allowed an application filed by the opposite party nos. 5 and 6, inter alia, directing the plaintiff-bank to pay the interest accrued on the term deposit receipt mentioned in the plaint to the defendant nos. 5 and 6 after deducting an amount of rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty fivethousand) only within 15 days from the date of the said order. the learned judge, also, fixed september 4, 1995 for peremptory hearing of the suit.2. on or about june 28, 1998 the plaintiff-bank sanctioned a sum of rs. 1,27, 600/- (rupees one lakh twenty seven thousand six hundred) only to the defendant no. 1 for purchasing a matador pick up van as by way of a medium term loan. the defendant nos. 2 to 7, including defendant nos. 5 and 6, guaranteed for due payment of the due amount of the loan taken by the defendant no. 1 and, also, undertook and/or promised to pay all interest costs and charges and expenses recoverable by the plaintiff from the said defendant no. 1. the said defendants, also, executed a deed of guarantee on june 28, 1998.3. on the allegation that the defendant no. 1 wrongfully and illegally failed and neglected to pay the loan lent and advance by the plaintiff in the said .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-15-2001
Reported in : (2001)2CALLT293(HC),2001(2)CHN389
m.h.s. ansari, j.1. the facts in brief and to the extent relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ application are as under;the west bengal university of animal and fishery sciences (respondent no. 2), for short w.b.u.a.f.s. was established in the year 1995 having been bifurcated from b.c.k.v. by west bengal act vi of 1995. the w.b.u.a.f.s.--the university is comprised of three faculties viz., (i) faculty of veterinary and animal sciences. (ii) faculty of diary technology and (iii) faculty of fishery sciences, an advertisement was made in leading newspapers by the university inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection in the teaching courses amongst others. various teaching posts exists in the said three departments which were required to be filled up including that of the posts of officers of the university. amongst the teaching posts advertised in the various departments, applications were invited for the posts of professors. readers and lecturers. for the post of veterinary medicine and public health in the faculty of veterinary and animal sciences, two posts of lecturers were advertised. the advertisement, annexure 'b' sets out the number of posts to be filed up as also the qualifications required therefor.2. in so far as the post of lecturers two in number is concerned, which is the subject matter of the instant writ application, in the impugned advertisement the qualifications have been specified and it has been further stated in clauses 6(d) .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-18-2001
Reported in : (2002)ILLJ1001Cal
barin ghosh, j. 1. this writ petition was filed in the year 1988 by a senior manager of the respondent bank, who worked initially as a clerk in the imperial bank of india and then with the respondent bank for a period of 39 years, challenging the charge sheet dated december 14, 1981, entire disciplinary proceedings thereon, the report of the enquiry officer, the order of recommendation passed by the respondent no. 4, the final order passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated, the appellate order passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order passed by the respondent no. 6 rejecting the application for review. very many points had been urged in the writ petition in support of the challenge thrown to the charge sheet, proceedings pursuant thereto and the orders passed therein, but at the hearing the same was restricted to denial of natural justice during the course of the enquiry for not supplying the documents and denial of natural justice for not supplying the vigilance report, which, according to the petitioner, was considered while taking the decision for completion of the disciplinary proceedings.2. the charge sheet, in the instant case, is dated december 14, 1981. it was alleged in the charge sheet that when the petitioner was posted as branch manager of biplabi rash behari basu road branch of the respondent bank between february, 1978 and august, 1979, the petitioner granted/sanctioned loans in excess of his authority. it was also .....Tag this Judgment!