Kolkata Court January 1998 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.
Rajeswar Das Vs. Durgapur State Transport Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: (1998)2CALLT32(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Bus Conductor with the Durgapur State Transport Corporation at the relevant time. He was served with a charge sheet on 19th December, 1981 whereby he was accused of having commited an act of misconduct. It was alleged in the charge sheet that on 21st November, 1981 while he was performing his duty as a Bus Conductor in Vehicle No. WMH 3542 on Durgapur Shikarpur route, his vehicle as checked by the flying squad and an amount of Rs. 38.35 palse was recovered in excess of the ticket amount from his cash bag. The charge meant that the excess amount was over and above the amount which reflected the sale of tickets by the petitioner. The petitioner in the reply to the charge sheet submitted, even though pleading not guilly to the charge, yet admitted the recovery of the said amount. The petitioner's explanation was that the excess amount recovered was actually his personal money which he accidentally carried with him at the time of Joining his...
Sharif HossaIn Alias Dalim Master Vs. KalimuddIn Shams and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Cal162
ORDERShyamal Kumar Sen, J. 1. In the instant election petition the petitioner has challenged the election of Kalimuddin Shams, the respondent No. 1, in 293-Naihati Assembly Constituency and has prayed inter alia for the following declaration (a) A declaration that the purported election of the respondent No. 1 in the said Constituency of 12th West Bengal Legislative Assembly election on 2nd May, 1996 be void, illegal and be declared to be cancelled; (b) A declaration that the purported declaration of result dated9th May, 1996 made by the Returning Officer of the said constituency declaring the respondent No. 1 as duly returned candidate from the said constituency be void and the same be set aside; (c) Further declaration be made that the petitioner who secured second highest valid voles in the said Constituency be elected from the said constituency in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly election held on 2-5-96; (d) An order of in junction be issued against the respondent No. 1 restrai...
In Re: Grapco Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Industrial Credit Investmen ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-06-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Cal170,(1998)1CALLT278(HC),1998(1)CHN202,[1999]97CompCas99(Cal)
B.M. Mitra, J.1. In all these above noted revisional applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the impugned orders challenges are in nature of ad-interim orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The said revisional applications are numbered as five separate applications and before dealing with them serially this court will consider the common questions of law and jurisdiction involved in the said proceedings.2. The common question which permeates the crux of the central range of controversy along with series of other pending revislonal applications is centered-round on resolution of a question raised which has an element of commonality in character as lo how far Debt Recovery Tribunal is Competent and is authorised to pass under a self-contained statute known as the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 51 of 1993) which has been contended by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of series of the petitioners and attention ...
In the Matter Of: Bonneswar Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-01-1998
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT74(HC),1998(1)CHN123,1998CriLJ1383
1. This is an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in the names of the applicants, but affirmed by a tadbirkar. It is stated in the petition that he is only conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.2. On the question of maintainability of the application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed by a tadbirkar, we heard the matter and we requested Mr. Balal Chandra Roy, a Senior Advocate of this Court to assist the Court as an Amtcus Curie. The learned Advocate Mr. Milan Kumar Mukherjee also Intervened and made his submission and ultimately Mr. Roy argued the matter with various case laws. Mr. Kazl Safiullah, learned Public Prosecutter also made his submission in this connection.3. Section 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as hereunder:'...When any person has reasons to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or Court of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›