Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)2CALLT133(HC)
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the West Bengal State Electricity Board being the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as Board) rejected the tender submitted by the writ petitioner. The dispute in real sense in this matter is not so much as the subject matter of the writ petition is, which relates to works in Purulia Pump Storage Project, Lot-4.2. The fact of this case in short is as follows:--The petitioner after having been declared successful in pre-qualified stage for Inviting tender submitted bids both on Techno Commercial and Price pursuant to invitation of the Board dated 24th November, 1997 for entering into contract for execution of Main Civil Works in Purulia Pump Storage Project along with other participants. The entire work was sub-divided into several schedules. Schedule C related to works to be done on the Lower dam. The petitioner's bid on Techno Commercial aspect was declared by the Board to be substantially responsive. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2001ACJ1891,(2001)2CALLT281(HC)
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the New IndiaAssurance Co. Limited mainly on the two grounds which are as follows :--(i) Since the application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed, the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should have been dismissed on the grounds that it is barred by the principle of res judicata. (ii) The compensation awarded to the claimant was on the higher side and the Insurance Company is entitled to challenge the same in this appeal although there was no application made before the Court below for permission under section 170 of the said Act of 1988. 2. For disposal of the present appeal the relevant section of the said Act of 1988 which would come up for consideration are set out for ready reference.Section 140. Liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault:--(1) Where death of permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2001(89)FLR990],(2001)ILLJ1160Cal
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. In this writ application, an employer has challenged an order dated January 27, 1999 and a Memo dated March 25, 1999 communicating the order rejecting an application for review of the order dated January 27, 1999 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.2. By the order dated January 27, 1999, the employer was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 46,205/- towards due of provident fund contribution payable by the petitioner for respondent No. 3, a reappointed employee.3. The respondent No. 3 was an employee of the petitioner No. 1 and having taken voluntary retirement at the age of 54 years 11 months was reappointed as a retainer on payment of Rs. 3,500/- a month initially for a period of one year from March 1, 1993 but such appointment was extended upto February 28, 1998.4. A notice under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('Act') was served upon the petitioner No. 1 alleging non-payment of dues for the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2001(89)FLR181],(2001)IILLJ282Cal
Bhattacharya, J.1. An award dated March 16, 1995 passed by the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal is the subject matter of this writ application.2. The following disputes were referred to the Tribunal:'1. Whether the Management of Engineering Projects (India) Limited is justified in terminating the service of Sri Goutam Chatterjee, Electrician, after a continuous service of more than 240 days?2. To what relief if any is he entitled to?'By the award impugned herein the Tribunal had answered those issues in favour of the employer holding that the employer was justified in terminating the service of the employee and that the employee was not entitled to any relief.3. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed initially at the rate of Rs. 30/- a day but subsequently, the said amount was enhanced to Rs. 41.50 paise a day and ultimately his salary was Rs. 900/- a month. There is also no dispute that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days within a period of twelve month...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR1008],(2002)IVLLJ260Cal
Baskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. In this writ application, the writ petitioner, an employee, has challenged an award dated November 27, 1995 passed by the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal in Case No. VIII-294/88 thereby answering the reference in favour of the employer.2. The following disputes were referred to the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act ('Act'):'1. Whether the termination of service of Sri Gouranga Acharjee is justified? 2. To what relief if any is he entitled ?' 3. The petitioner was a permanent employee of the private respondent. There is no dispute that the petitioner was absenting from work since March 19, 1987 without information and submitted a medical certificate issued by one Dr. P.N. Mukherjee along with an application stating that due to his sickness he could not resume his duty and inform the employer earlier. On that day viz. April 9, 1987 he was not permitted to join and subsequently a letter dated April 18, 1987 was served upon the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ1383Cal
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application the writ petitioner, the Company, has challenged an order of reference dated June 8, 2000 issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act ('Act') before the 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur.2. There is no dispute that petitioner has already entered appearance and filed written statement before the Tribunal.3. The grievance of Mr. Sengupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this writ application is twofold.First, Mr. Sengupta has contended that there was no sufficient material before the appropriate Government to refer the dispute to the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act.Secondly, Mr. Sengupta contends that in the fact of the present case there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and as such no industrial dispute has arisen justifying reference.4. It is now settled position of law that in making a reference ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2001CriLJ3470
Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction under Section 302 passed on 24-3-90 against the accused/appellant and against the sentence of imprisonment for life on such conviction.2. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 11-1-87 one dead body of unknown person was seen lying on the land of Jagabandhu Mahato at village Krishnapur, P.S., Raipur, Dist. Bankura. The dead body was of a person aged about 40 years approximately, wearing green underwear and white blood stained Genji. There was a deep bleeding injury on the left of the eyes. After the informant Prafullya Kumar Mahato lodged an information to this effect to the O.C., Raipur P.S., Police Officer came to the place at about 12 noon on the same day. Accused/appellant Sanatan was brought to the spot from his house which was situated near that place. Besides the informant (P.W. 1), Nityananda Mahato (P.W. 4), Sitaram Mahato (P.W. 3) and others also came to that spot. The accused/appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [2001]248ITR728(Cal)
Sengupta, J.1. The facts of the case are very simple in this matter. The assessee was assessed for the assessment year 1992-93 ex parte on the ground of failure of the assessee to appear in spite of successive notices.So, I do not find any procedural impropriety for taking up this matter ex parte.2. The Assessing Officer had passed an assessment order. An appeal was sought to be preferred and indeed, it was preferred but ultimately it was withdrawn because a revisional application was taken out by the assessee. The order of the revisional authority is precisely under challenge and I think it fit to examine the order of the revisional authority which is sought to be impugned here. The whole question is whether the revisional authority has exercised its jurisdiction properly within the four corners of Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or not.3. I have examined the impugned order of the revisional authority. It appears to me that the revisional authority after having gone through t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)1CALLT396(HC)
G.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against an order dated 28-1-1987 passed by the learned 12th Court of the Additional District Judge. 24-Parganas in appeal affirming the judgment dated 12-7-1985 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit. For convenience the appellant shall herein after be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondent as the defendant.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that by a deed of conveyance, Ext. A(6), dated 30-5-1978 the plaintiff absolutely conveyed 69 decimal of land at a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant. By an agreement dated 30-5-1978, Ext. 4(B). the defendant, after recording that the plaintiff had sold the aforesaid land and had made over possession thereof, agreed to reconvey the land to the plaintiff provided the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs.10,000/- within 30th Ashar, 1386 B.S. Both the deed of conveyance and the said agreement were executed on 15th Jaistha, 1385 B.S. which is equivalent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ450Cal
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. In this writ application, an employer has challenged an order dated September 20, 2000 passed by the Recovery Officer which is Annexure G to the instant writ application thereby demanding amount of interest and costs under the provision of Section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. in addition to the amount mentioned in the certificate.2. The only question that falls for determination in this writ application is whether a Recovery Officer is vested with the authority under the aforesaid Act to impose interest on the amount mentioned in the certificate notwithstanding the fact that such interest has not been included in the certificate.3. Sri Nayak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the position of a Recovery Officer under the aforesaid Act is exactly that of an executing Court and as such, unless the authority under Section 7-A of the Act has included the amount of interest in t...
Tag this Judgment!