Kolkata Court April 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.
Barindra Nath Jha Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT411(HC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th February, 1995, passed by a learned Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition involving fixation of his seniority in service in relation to the respondent No. 7 in the writ petition.2. According to the case made out in the writ petition, at the time of filing thereof, the appellant was working as additional Chief Personnel Manager and the respondent No. 7 was holding the post of Chief Personnel Manager under the Central Coalfields Ltd., and in matters relating to service, they are both governed by the Common Coal Cadre framed by Coal India Ltd.3. It is also the appellant's case that he joined the East India Coal Company as Labour welfare officer in 1962 before its nationalisation, and after nationalisation, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'B.C.C.L.', appointed him as Personnel Manager at its headquarters on 1st July, 1972, in the scale of Rs. 400-1250/-.4. It app...
Shalimar Paints Ltd. Vs. Metal Box India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal363
ORDER1. This is an application made by Shaltmar Paints Ltd. pursuant to the Judge's summons taken out on 7th July 1994. The said Shaltmar Paint inter alia wanted it to be recorded that the order dated 30th January, 1992 .has stood discharged and/or satisfied upon payment and/or adjustment as mentioned in paragraph 21 of the affidavit in support of the said petition. It also prayed for return of extra sum of money alleged to be paid by it to M/s. Metal Box India Ltd., being the petitioning creditor. It also prayed for injunction restraining the petitioning creditor from taking any steps in terms of the order dated 30th January, 1992 until the disposal of the application.2. On 30th January, 1992 the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court inter alia held that they are of the view that Metal Box India Ltd., the appellant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- from Shalimar Paints Ltd.,which the appellant Metal Box had agreed to accept in full and final satisfaction of its claim in the wind...
Cesc Ltd. and Another Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal384
ORDER1. By this Writ Applicationunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Writ Petitioners, C.E.S.C. Limited and another (hereinafter referred to as petitioners), have prayed the Court for an order 'that Sections 5, 6 and 14 of the West Bengal. Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 in so far as ittakes away the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and confers jurisdiction upon the said, Tribunal to decide the constitutional points are violative of basic structure of the Constitution of India and void to the said-extent' and issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to act in accordance with law and to cancel and/or rescind and/or withdraw the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 6 in cases Nos. R.N. 481(T)of 1989 and 241(T) of 1992, the Memo No. 4130 dated 26th September, 1995 and Memo No. 4285 dated I9th October, 1995 both issued by the respondent No. 2 and the memo No. 22967 CT dat...
Sm. Debirani Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. District Inspector of Schools ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ477Cal; 1996(2)CHN415
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated February 11, 1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant claiming appointment on compassionate ground and/or regularisation with certain directions.2. The writ-petitioners filed the writ application, inter alia, on the ground that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and grandfather of the petitioner No.2, Sasthiram Bhattacharjee was a Class IV employee of Durgapur T.N. High School (hereinafter referred to as the said School). He died in harness on November 29, 1989, allegedly, leaving behind a widow, a son and the writ-petitioner No. 2 who is his grandson. According to the writ-petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 has been ailing for a long time and has not been in a position to work. The father of the petitioner No.2 is also a handicapped person. The writ-petitioners in support of their aforementioned conte...
Dr. Amal Kumar Samanta and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT494(HC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The short point involved in this case is whether the petitioners, who are working either as Technical Assistants, Technical Supervisors or Herbarium Assistants in the University of Burdwan, can be classified as 'Teaching Staff' under the provisions of The Burdwan University Act, 1981, and the Statutes framed under Section 57(2) thereof.2. Appearing in support of the Writ petition, Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned advocate, submitted that as Technical Assistants in the different branches of science, the petitioners were and are required to (i) make lesson units for practical classes (ii) assist and impart instruction to the students in practical classes (iii) perform demonstration work in practical classes and (iv) keep attendance of students in practical classes and maintain a record of the work done by them.3. Mr. Sengupta urged that while the nature of work indicated above is essentially teaching-oriented and involves imparting of education, the petitioners ha...
Smt. Sankari Maity and ors. Vs. Birendra Nath Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT174(HC)
B. Panigrahi, J. 1. The instant revisional application is directed against an order No. 96 dated 5th August, 1991 passed by the 3rd Munsff, Howrah in T.S. 55 of 1971 allowing the application filed by the opposite party under section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and consequently dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The petitioner who was eventually the plaintiff in the Title Suit 55 of 1971 had filed the suit for partition and for account. The suit was preliminary decreed and thereafter the opposite party had preferred an appeal before the appellate court in title appeal 126 of 1972. The said title appeal was transferred to the learned Second Additional District Judge at Howrah who dismissed the appeal, inter alia, holding that the plaintiff and the defendants are the co-sharers. After the dismissal of the appeal the defendant chose not to file any second appeal before this court and allowed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as the first appellat...
international Blending and Warehousing Corporation and anr. Vs. Poddar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT344(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Power filed by Mr. Parthasarathi Bose be kept with the record. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the revisional application. Appearing for the petitioners, the learned Advocate Mr. Asish Kr. Sanyal has referred to paragraph 2 of the petition and submits that the delay was caused due to the illness of the learned Advocate who was admitted in the Nursing Home and on such submission he prays for condonation of delay.2. Mr. Parthasarathi Bose, learned Advocate for the O.P. in his usual fairness submits that as it is the ground of Illness of the learned Advocate for the petitioner he is not opposing the petition. Considering the submission of the learned Advocates for the parties it appears to me that the explanation given in para 2 of the petition is acceptable and plausable. I accordingly, condone the delay and allow the application.3. By consent of the part...
Khalid Riaz Vs. I.G.P. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT445(HC)
Sudhendu Nath Mallick, J.1. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on 2.5.95 he lawfully married one Sangita Chhibber, the daughter of the respondent No. 7 according to Muslim law before the Registrar of the Muslim Marriage at Port Blair and it is alleged that the said Sangita Chhibber embraced Islam at the time of marriage and a muslim name Shanin was given to her. It is also alleged that both of them are majors and the marriage was consummated on the very date. On 3rd May, 1995 the respondent No. 7 the father of the said Sangita Chibber alongwith other Police Officers came to the residence of the petitioner and forcibly took away his wife Sangita Chibber alias Shanin inspite of his stif resistance. Thereafter the petitioner sent a letter dated 3.5.1995 to the respondents No. 1 to 6, the local Police Officers containing very many allegations regarding his marriage with Sangita according to Muslim law with the following prayer:-'Under the circumstances and for the reasons mentioned...
Om Birangana Religious Society Through Kalipada Das Vs. the State and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT474(HC),100CWN617
Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner, a religious organisation, claims that the respondents should not interfere with the right of user of microphones, loud-speakers, and for amplifying human voice and for amplifying other sounds while playing daily pujas and other religious activities and display of religious songs. The petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the District Magistrate and/or the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatal, to accord necessary permission in favour of the said society in terms of Section 34A of the Police Act, 1963, (West Bengal Amendment).2. The point raised in this writ application is of great public importance and significance. Section 34A of the Police Act, 1861, as amended by the West Bengal Act 38 of 1963, reads as follows:'34A. Power to prohibit, restrict, regulate or impose conditions on the use of microphones, etc., (1) If, in the opinion of the Magistrate of the district or any Sub-Divisional Magi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›