Kolkata Appellate Court February 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M/S. Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited. Vs. State of West Bengal a ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. An industrial dispute between M/s. Indian Iron & Steel Company Limited, Burnpur Works (hereafter the company) and their workmen represented by ABK Metal & Engineering Workers Union, Purnahat (hereafter the respondent no.3) was referred to the 9th Industrial Tribunal at Durgapur for adjudication. The Tribunal was required to decide the following issue:Whether retrenchment of Sarbashree Narayan Chandra Jhariat, Balaram Hela, Jaharwarilal Bauri, Lakshmi Kumar Karmakar and Sridhar Tantubay by Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Burnpur Works, Burnpur by way of nonrenewal of contract with M/s. Kaycee Industries is justified?To what relief, if any, are these workmen entitled?2. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an award dated 11th December, 2000. It was ordered as follows:The reference case u/s. 10 is allowed on contest. An award be passed to the effect that the order of retrenchment of Sarbashree Narayan Chandra Jhariat, Balaram Hela, Jaharwarilal Bauri, Lakshmi Kumar Ka...
Sri Gurupada Mandal Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in Pichhabani Primary School (hereafter the said school) under Contai-II Circle, within the jurisdiction of the Purba Medinipur District Primary School Council (hereafter the said Council). He is aggrieved because the Chairman of the said Council by order contained in Memo dated August 13, 2003 has dismissed him from service for the following reasons :a) That he has failed to submit the original Mark Sheet and certificate in Spite of offering several scope to submit.b) That it is seen from the original service book he has passed school final Examination in the year 1965 but from the Mark Sheet of Bihar Secondary Examination Board, Patna it is Seen that he has passed Madhyamik Examination in the year 1975.c) That in spite of sending several letters for attending the office he could not present himself before the chairman of the them (sic then) Midnapur District Primary School Council. He has disobeyed the order of the chairman.2. The petitioner...
Paban Kumar Maji and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. The petitioners are alleging that though they are entitled to compensation from the licensee that used their lands for placing electric lines for transmission of electricity, the respondents have not determined the amount of compensation and paid the compensation. 2. Mr Basu, counsel for the sixth respondent that is liable to pay compensation in terms of the provisions of ss.10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, submits that the amount of compensation will be determined by the Power Grid Corporation within the time specified by this Court. 3. In view of the above-noted situation, I dispose of the petition ordering as follows. 4. Compensation, if any, payable to the petitioners shall be determined by the Power Grid Corporation in terms of the provisions of ss.10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 5. If it is found that the petitioners are entitled to compensation, then payment shall be offered within a week...
Rabi Das and anr. Vs. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited and ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated April 21, 2010 are seeking a mandamus commanding CESC to supply them electricity on the basis of an application dated July 26, 2001 submitted by one Joydeb Das, since deceased, under provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the then conditions of supply. 2. By letters dated January 30, 2002 and March 15, 2002 CESC informed Joydeb that once the conditions mentioned in the letters were fulfilled it would be in a position to examine the question of giving him supply. Joydeb did not do anything. It is understood that for objection of the fourth respondent supply could not be given. 3. It has not been stated when Joydeb (the first petitioners father and the second petitioners husband) died; and nothing has been stated why no step was taken in terms of the letters of CESC written to Joydeb in 2002. All of a sudden in April 2010 this petition was filed, though there was no visible cause of action. The Indian Electricity Act, 1910 was...
Jahangir Alam Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
The death reference Case No. 3 of 2009 and the Criminal Appeals being C.R.A. No. 553 of 2009 and C.R.A. No. 569 of 2009, all are arising out of a common judgement and order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Malda, whereby the Learned Judge convicted the said two appellants, viz., Anarul Hoque and Jahangir Alam under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced thereunder to death and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. They were also convicted under Sections 376 (2)(g)/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer half of the imprisonment for life and also under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to suffer imprisonment for 15 days.While the Trial Court referred the matter to this Court for confirmation of sentence of death passed against the aforesaid ...
Jinnath Mistry Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the police whom the petitioner repeatedly approached are not taking necessary steps for protecting the petitioners life and property. He invites me to make an order directing the police to act properly. 2. Power under art.226 is not to be exercised for making a vague seamless order. If inspite of information given by the petitioner about commission of any cognizable offence by the private respondents the police did not register any FIR, the petitioner ought to have approached the Magistrate seeking an order under s.156(3) or s.190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The allegation that when the petitioner visited the police station and requested the police officers to register a case against the private respondents that they forcibly took away the sale proceeds he was brining after selling a part of his property, the police officers registered a false case against him compelling him to take bail, cannot be made the foundation for makin...
Prasant Kumar Daw. Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner praying for an appropriate order and direction for expeditious trial of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the defacto-complainant of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the Court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta and the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 are the co-owners/ cooccupants of their ancestral property situated at 12B, Nanda Mullick Lane, Kolkatta 700 006. In between 19.10.2004 and 27.10.2004 the opposite parties No. 2 to 6/accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, trespassed into the rooms of the petitioner by breaking the padlock and committed theft of his household items worth about Rs. 80,000/-. On the basis of his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code complaint case ...
Ananda Paul and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore, sentencing each of the appellants Ananda Paul and Smt. Ghanteswari Paul to suffer R.I. for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, and also to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two months under Section 201/34 Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge further sentenced Ghanteswari to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for two months under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellants Mukunda Paul and Sandhya Dey was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for two months under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. Appellant Ghanteswar...
Smt. Padmabati MitrA. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. The petitioner herein, is the widow of an employee of Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region who was posted at Rangpo Drilling Camp, Sikkim as Camp-in-Charge at the relevant time. 2. The said employee, namely, the husband of the petitioner met with a motor accident on 18 th October, 1982 along with other employees while returning from Darjeeling. The vehicle in question belonged to the department namely, Geological Survey of India Ltd. 3. In view of the aforesaid motor accident, the husband of the petitioner and some other persons died in spot. The respondent authorities, thereafter, sanctioned family pension to the petitioner under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with effect from 19 th October 1982. The petitioner also filed a motor accident claim case demanding payment of compensation and insurance amount. The said motor accident claim case was registered as MACC Case No. 34 of 1985 and 35 of 1985. After final disposal of the motor accident claim case the petitioner herein was award...
Kankanika Mallick. Vs. Partha Pratim Mallick.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. These two applications are taken up for hearing analogously since the two applications have arisen out of the same matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.11 of 2007 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Twelfth Court, Alipore.2. The wife is the petitioner of the application being C.O. No.2886 of 2010 and she has come up against the order no.53 dated June 14, 2010 and the order no.52 dated July 7, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Twelfth Court, Alipore in the said matrimonial suit. The other application being C.O. No.3166 of 2010 has arisen out of the order dated 53 dated September 14, 2010 passed by the same learned Additional District Judge in the said matrimonial suit.3. or convenience, I am taking up the C.O. No.2886 of 2010 first.4. The wife/petitioner herein is the respondent of the Matrimonial Suit No.11 of 2007 under the Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the husband/opposite party herein. The said matrimonial suit was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »