Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Year: 1999 Page 45 of about 477 results (0.006 seconds)

Jun 28 1999 (HC)

B. Kishore Vs. Manju Alias Manjula

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-28-1999

Reported in : (1999)3MLJ269

a. subbulakshmy, j. 1. this appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned single judge in o.p.no. 706 of 1993. the petitioner filed the o.p. under section 10 of the guardian and wards act read with order 21, rule 3 of original side rules contending as follows:petitioner is the father and the respondent is the mother of k. dinesh born on 22.9.1983. after the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent were living in madras in so many places. the terms between the petitioner and the respondent were not cordial and there were frequent quarrels on account of incompatibility and the respondent was not able to adjust herself to the conditions of the petitioner. the respondent along with the minor son k. dinesh without any just cause or reason, abruptly left for bombay in the beginning of october, 1993 and never chosen to come back. the efforts taken by the petitioner have not resulted in any fruitful result so far. the respondent out of ill will and malice is bent upon withdrawing herself from the marital home of the petitioner for unknown reasons. the petitioner is employed in a decent organisation and is also earning from his financial business which is being done by his mother rajkumari at bombay. the petitioner being the father, is able to maintain the minor son, provide him with all comforts, good education besides love and affection in his company. the minor son is with his mother at poona and he had to necessarily forego his studies. the petitioner is able to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1999 (HC)

Modi Korea Telecommunication Ltd. Vs. Appcon Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-02-1999

Reported in : (1999)1CALLT285(HC),1999(2)CHN107

r. pal, j.1. this appeal involves the question of the jurisdiction of a single judge, who has been given the determination to hear and dispose of arbitration matters, to entertain applications under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the act.)2. the facts giving rise to the question are briefly stated. the respondent does the business of rendering radio paging services. it procures pagers from the manufactures and appoints distributors to sell or lease the pager units to the consumers. according to the appellant the respondent was one such distributor and that in terms of the agreements between the resondent and the appellant, the respondent was to pay lease rent to the appellant. it is the appellant's case that lease rent of several lakhs of rupees fell due and payable by the respondent to the appellant.3. in september 1996 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant in (t.s. no. 361 of 1996) before the second munsiff at allpore praying for cancellation of the lease agreements between the respondent and the appellant 4. there is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the appellant and the respondent. the appellant filed an application under section 9 of the act in the high court for interim relief. the interim application has been disposed of.5. the appellant appointed a senior advocate as sole arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause on 19.5.97 and called upon the respondent to concur in the appointment. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1999 (HC)

Shri Nirode Baran Nandy and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-08-1999

Reported in : (2000)1CALLT465(HC),[2000(86)FLR591]

r. pal j.1. the petitioners are all sub-assistant engineers in the mechanical division of the public health engineering directorate. one of their grievances before the west bengal administrative tribunal was that they had been wrongly denied the right to participate in an interview held by the state public service commission in november 1994 for appointment to the post of assistant engineers (mechanical) in the directorate. their writ application which was filed in december 1994 was transferred to the tribunal under the administrative tribunals act. 1985. an interim order was passed on 30th september 1996 directing the respondents not fill any more posts of assistant engineers till the disposal of the application. the application was ultimately dismissed by the tribunal on 13th january 1998.2. as the facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgment of my learned brother s.n. bhattacharya, j. it is not necessary to set out the same in extenso again. only those facts which are relevant to the particular issue which 1 wish to address viz. the process of selection by the public service commission, are briefly noted.3. the arbitrariness in the process followed by the public service commission (psc) in the selection of assistant engineers (mechanical) is evident from the outset.4. applications for appointment to the post of assistant engineer in the west bengal public health engineering service were called for in an advertisement published on 12th june 1993. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1999 (HC)

Simon Rajan Vs. Anita Simon Rajan

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-03-1999

Reported in : (1999)2CALLT137(HC),I(2000)DMC116

the court 1. the plaintiff instituted the suit fn the form of an application under section 10 or section 23 of the indian divorce act, 1869 whichever will be applicable in the present case.2. the cause of making such alternative relief is that the husband/ petitioner made out case of adultery as well as physical and mental cruelty or desertion simultaneously as against the wife.3. the petitioner/husband served a notice of making this application and filed the affidavit-of-service along with other incidental papers to establish that service was effected upon the respondent. in addition thereto, he produced a certificate issued by the deputy registrar, original side of this court wherefrom it appears that the respondent did not appear either in person or by advocate. let the affidavit-of-service and other incidental papers along with the certificate issued by the concerned deputy registrar be kept with the record.4. since no denial was there, i was inclined to proceed on the basis of order 8 rule 5 of the code of civil procedure but mr. k.s.roy, learned senior counsel with the able assistance of mrs. swapna mukherjee learned counsel appearing with him, contended that in view of the circumstances particulars when the husband has brought certain charges of adultery as well as cruelty and desertion against wife, there should be witness action to bring the real picture before the court for the ends of justice. this court appreciated the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1999 (HC)

Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corpn. of India Vs. Debyajoti Bose<br>and< ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jan-21-1999

Reported in : (1999)2CALLT183(HC)

b.m. mitra, j.1. the connected writ petition has been filed at theinstance of m/s. rainbow production private ltd., a company incorporated under the companies act and one miss soma mukherjee, one of thedirectors of the petitioner no. 1 company against prasar bharau (broadcasting corporation of india), a body corporate and its numerous office bearers who are figuring as respondents in the said writ petition. it appears from the perusal of the prayer portion of the connected writ petition that manifold prayers are made, inter alia, for a declaration that prasar bharati (broadcasting corporation of india) being an autonomous body cannot stall and/or amend any concluded contract entered between any citizen and the corporation and cannot at any stage withhold and/or withdraw its public commitments and for a further writ of mandamus to give effect to an earlier decision taken by the former chief executive officer, prasar bharatl which was communicated to the doordarshan kendra, calcutta and also to the petitioners vide letter dated 25.7.98 issued by the deputy director general of eastern region and for withdrawing and/or reversing the said decision in july, 1998 by former ceo of the prasar bharau broadcasting corporation and also for a further writ of mandamus to withdraw the case for finally approving of the proposal by way of scuttling the programme proposed to be telecast on dd-1 and dd-7 channel of calcutta doordarshan kendra on 5.10.98 and also for issuance of a writ of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 1999 (HC)

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-10-1999

Reported in : (1999)3CALLT140(HC)

s.b. sinha, j. 1. this appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 5th june, 1996 passed by a learned single judge of this court in matter no. 948 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the said learned judge dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant herein questioning an award dated 28th march 1984 and published in the gazette on 19th april 1994, of the central government industrial tribunal, the respondent number 1 herein. the fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.2. the concerned workmen who were seventy one in number had been working in sodepur sub area of the appellant company as casual wagon loaders. a notification was issued by the central government in exercise of its power under section 10(1) of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act 1970 whereby and whereunder employment of contract labour inter alia in the matter of loading and unloading of coal was abolished. the said notification came into force with effect from first may, 1974. according to the appellant upon abolition of employment of the contract labour in terms of the aforementioned notification, the concerned workmen had been working as casual workmen as and when their services were required. however, admittedly, 401 workmen used to be engaged on casual basis for the purpose of loading of coal on the wagons. the appellant alleges that for the purpose of appointing such casual workmen on a regualr basis a screening committee was constituted in consultation with a trade .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 1999 (HC)

Khaitan (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-10-1999

Reported in : AIR1999Cal1

satya brata sinha, j. 1. this review application has been filed for review of our judgment dated 6th april, 1999, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the applicant herein was dismissed.2. mr. ghosh appearing on behalf of the applicant, inter alia, submitted that there exists an error apparent on the face of the records necessitating review of the said judgment and order, in view of the fact that this court has failed to take notice of the fact that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, alternative remedy cannot be said to be a bar. the learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon various decisions of the supreme court of india, namely. dr. smt. kuntesh gupta v. management of hindu kanya mahavidyalaya, sitapur (u.p.), reported in : 1987(32)elt8(sc) ; baburain prakash chandra maheshwari v. antarim zila parishad now zila parishad, muzaffarnagar, reported in : [1969]1scr518 and also in : 1983ecr2151d(sc) and in whirlpool corporation v. registrar of trade marks, munibal reported in : air1999sc22 .3. according to the learned counsel as in view of the aforementioned decisions of the apex court even the exception to the rule namely the writ court shall not ordinarily entertain the writ application has no application in the case where the principles of natural justice has been violated, in the interest of justice the said order should be reviewed. relying on the basis of the decision in commissioner of sales tax, j. & k. v. pine .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1999 (HC)

Drug Controller General of India and anr. Vs. West Bengal Small Scale ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-27-1999

Reported in : AIR1999Cal133

1. the instant appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 14-2-97 reported in : air1997cal186 passed by a learned single judge in c.o. no. 5043 (w) of 1996 whereby and whereunder the notification no. g.s.r.-793 (e), issued under section 26a of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 (in short the act) and published in the gazette dated 13th december, 1995 was quashed and set aside.2. by the impugned notification dated 13th december, 1995 a prohibition on manufacture, sale and distribution of fixed dose combination of hydroxyquinoline group of drugs with any other drug, except for preparations meant for external use, was imposed.3. the impugned notification has been issued in exercise of the power vested in the central government under section 26a of the act which reads as under :--'power of central government to prohibit manufacture, etc. of drug and cosmetic in public interest.-- without prejudice to any other provision contained in this chapter, if the central government is satisfied, that the use of any drug or cosmetic is likely to involve any risk to human beings or animals or that any drug does not have the therapeutic value claimed or purported to be claimed for it or contains ingredients and in such quantity for which there is no therapeutic justification and that in the public interest it is necessary or expedient so to do, then, that government may, by notification in the official gazette, prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of such drug or cosmetic .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 1999 (HC)

Ashish Kumar Roy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-16-1999

Reported in : AIR1999Cal242,(1999)3CALLT466(HC)

orderk.j. sengupta, j.1. in this petition the petitioner being the learned member of the bar association (the respondent no. 3) has challenged the vires of the west bengal land reforms and tenancy tribunal act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the said act).2. in the petition it has been alleged amongst other that they being the regular practitioners of this court are seriously affected as they are having substantial practice in litigations of land laws in the event the said act comes in operation.3. in the petition the sum and substance of the challenge as against the act are given hereunder.(i) it is not a tribunal within the meaning of the provision of article 323-b(1) of clause (d) as it lacks all the attributes of this article.(ii) the jurisdiction, power and authority of the tribunal as mentioned in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the act are ultra vires constitution of india as it intends to take away the power of judicial review of the high court under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, as a court of first instance.(iii) the provision of transfer of all the pending matters, proceedings, cases and appeals in this hon' ble court under sectiion 9 of the said act also ultra vires constitution as it intends to take away jurisdiction and power of this court under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, consequently it hits basic structure of the constitution.4. mr. samaraditya pal, learned senior advocate, appearing for the writ petitioners has amplified .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1999 (HC)

Union of India Vs. Singh Verma and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-25-1999

Reported in : (1999)3CALLT354(HC)

r. pal, j.1. the appellant has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of an application under sections 30 and 33 of the arbitration act, 1940 (referred to as the act).2. briefly, the facts are that an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondents for construction in connection with bridges at mughalsarai. the work was to have been completed by september, 1992. according to the appellant the respondent failed to complete the work in terms of the agreement and the appellant terminated the contract on 21st march 1994.3. there was an arbitration clause in the agreement and pursuant to an order passed under section 20 of the act, the general manager appointed mr. s.k. mallick and mr. r.b. singh as joint arbitrators. a statement of claim was filed by the appellant on 11th february, 1996 claiming approximately rs.44 lakhs under 15 different heads. on 28th march 1996 a counter-statement was filed by the appellant when a meeting was held by the arbitrators.4. the arbitrators made and published their award on 21st november, 1996. after allowing and dis-allowing some claims the arbitrators held that a sum of rs. 12,76,548/- was payable by the appellant to the respondent together with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from 1.5.95 until realisation of decree from a competent court.5. broadly speaking, three points have been raised by the appellants on the basis of which it is argued that the award should be set aside. the first ground is that the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //