Kolkata Court March 1996 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.
Director, Indian Institute of Management and ors. Vs. Basudeb Patra an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1996
Reported in: 100CWN475,(1998)IIILLJ130Cal
Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated January 8, 1992 passed by ParitoshMukherjce, J., whereby and where under the said learned Court, allowed the writ application filed by the writ-petitioner-respondent. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.2. The petitioners are members of the security staff of Indian Institute of Management. Admittedly, on or about August 21, 1990, the Board of Directors of Indian Institute of Management adopted a resolution which reads thus : 'The Board agreed in principle to the proposed revision in the pay scales of the security guards in IIT Delhi/Kharagpur, particularly in the context of the need to improve security, subject to Government approval being obtained before the revised scales are implemented.' 3. The petitioners' contention before the learned Trial Judge appears to be that despite the fact that the said resolution was taken on August 21, 1990, no steps therefor have been taken by the respo...
Karunaketan Ganguly Vs. Allahabad Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1452],(1997)ILLJ147Cal
Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.1. The petitioner, Karunaketan, has hit upon the writ application for issuance of Mandamus and for other collateral reliefs which fielded amongst others the quashing of charge-sheet dated July 5, 1984, annexure-A.Thus, I begin :-2. The petitioner while acting as Branch Manager, Dunlop Bridge, Allahabad Bank made advances, loans, overdrafts etc., with the approval of the authority between February 28, 1983 and May 21, 1984. Ultimately it turned to be a sore in his official career. Administrative functions of the said branch bore the dent as it was starving for the staff about which the respondents are in an inhospitable look. He did not receive feedback from the head office. The respondents charged him with misconduct for unwise and unauthorised acts of his contrary to Banking Rules, norms and procedures, namely Rules 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regn., 1976. The misconduct had left him writhing in agony.3. Needless ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Harmony House and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT444(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order of a learned Single Judge in a proceeding, at the instance of the respondents to the present appeal, inter alia, challenging a show cause notice issued by the Estate Officer of the appellants with regard to the premises occupied as tenants by the writ petitioners in the two cases.2. Notices were issued for ejectment of the respondents on two grounds, namely, (1) ground of default and (2) alteration of the premises in occupation of the tenant and thus causing damage to it. It may be noticed, at this stage, that the first ground is common in both the cases whereas the second ground was mentioned only in the second matter where-in the tenant was Govordhan Nopany and another.3. As stated above, challenging the said notices, the writ applications were moved. The learned Trial Judge, by the impugned order, inter alia, held that the guidelines, purported to have been issued by the Central Government, on which relian...
SirajuddIn and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT102(HC)
Bijitendra Mohan Mitra, J.1. In this writ proceeding a preliminary objection has been taken at the instance of the Central Government and also on behalf of the State of Orissa about the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court to be in seisin of the controversy in question. At the point of threshold before embarking into a journey with regard to the merits of the pending writ proceeding, the parties wanted the preliminary point to be thrust out threadbare, as according to the respondents, such preliminary point is of serious consequence it has been attempted to be contended in no uncertain term by the concerned respondent that this High Court has got no territorial Jurisdiction to hear the matter in question. From the Cause Title of the writ petition, it appears that, apart from Union of India, State of Orissa and its office bearers have been impleaded as respondents having their respective offices at New Delhi and in different places in Orissa. This Court while hearing the matter o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›