Appellant Vs. Respondent

Appellant vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Oct 17, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1059984

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1059984
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Decided On: Oct 17, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Appellant

Respondent

Excerpt

w.p.920 of 2012 in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side ram prasad bauri versus coal india ltd and ors.petitioner respondents before: the hon'ble justice dr. sambuddha chakrabarti date :17. h october, 2012. for the petitioner : mr.subrata ganguly for the respondents : mr.kalimuddin mondal with mr.s.ghosh, advocates the court : the petitioner is directed to serve all the respondents, if not already served, within 15 days from objection today. about the the respondents territorial take a preliminary jurisdiction of this court to entertain the writ petition. according to them, the appropriate high court should be jharkhand high court. it, however, appears that the petitioner has not virtually annexed any relevant documents to the writ petition. mr.ganguly submits that the appointment letter or charge sheet or any other order of dismissal was never issued to his client. this contention is disputed very seriously by the learned advocate for the respondents. since a preliminary objection has been taken by the concerned respondents about the jurisdiction of this court and since it cannot be decided from the annexures annexed to the writ petition, i direct the respondents to file an affidavit only on the preliminary objection taken by them about the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain the writ petition. the respondents in the affidavit shall not be required to deal with the merits or allegations made in the writ petition but they shall be at liberty to annex all necessary documents in support of their contention. let such affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks after the re-opening of the court after the puja vacation. let this december, matter 2012 be under listed the in same the firs.heading week before of the appropriate bench. photostat available to certified the copy parties of upon this order compliance be of made usual formalities. ( dr. sambuddha chakrabarti, j.) rs.ar(cr)

Full Judgment

W.P.920 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side RAM PRASAD BAURI Versus COAL INDIA LTD AND ORS.Petitioner Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR.

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date :

17. h October, 2012.

For the Petitioner : Mr.Subrata Ganguly For the Respondents : Mr.Kalimuddin Mondal with Mr.S.Ghosh, Advocates THE COURT : The petitioner is directed to serve all the respondents, if not already served, within 15 days from objection today.

about The the respondents territorial take a preliminary jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition.

According to them, the appropriate High Court should be Jharkhand High Court.

It, however, appears that the petitioner has not virtually annexed any relevant documents to the writ petition.

Mr.Ganguly submits that the appointment letter or charge sheet or any other order of dismissal was never issued to his client.

This contention is disputed very seriously by the learned advocate for the respondents.

Since a preliminary objection has been taken by the concerned respondents about the jurisdiction of this Court and since it cannot be decided from the annexures annexed to the writ petition, I direct the respondents to file an affidavit only on the preliminary objection taken by them about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition.

The respondents in the affidavit shall not be required to deal with the merits or allegations made in the writ petition but they shall be at liberty to annex all necessary documents in support of their contention.

Let such affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks after the re-opening of the Court after the Puja vacation.

Let this December, matter 2012 be under listed the in same the fiRs.heading week before of the appropriate Bench.

Photostat available to certified the copy parties of upon this order compliance be of made usual formalities.

( DR.

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) Rs.AR(CR)

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2012 Same Parties Appellant vs Respondent Same Subject Education Same Judge Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti