Kolkata Court January 2002 Judgments

Managing Committee, Chetla Boys High School and ors. Vs. West Bengal B ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)1CALLT330(HC)

P.K. Ray, J. 1. In this writ application, the Managing Committee of a school which was reconstituted in terms of the election held on 19.12.99, has challenged the decision of the President, West Bengal Brard of Secondary Education dated 9.8.2000 as communicated by memo No. S/461/2 dated 9.8.2000 by the Secretary. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. By the impugned order, the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, upon exercising his emergency power under Section 28(2) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, appointed an Administrator in the management of Chetla Boys' High School. This order was passed by the President. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the said President for the brevity) admittedly without hearing the Managing Committee which started to function with effect from 31.5.2000 upon holding office bearers election. 2. This writ application is being opposed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Educatio...

Statesman Clerical Staff and Workmen's Union Vs. State of West Bengal ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ122Cal

D.K. Seth, J.1. In this writ petition the following prayers have been made:a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the copy of the certified standing order, as claimed by the Company should not be supplied to the petitioner; b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to withdraw and/or rescind and/or cancel the existing Private Service Rules entirely inconsistent with the model standing orders; c) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit and/or produce, the certified standing order if any before this Hon'ble Court. 2. In the pleadings the writ petitioners have alleged that though standing orders have since been framed for the working journalists under the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955 but no standing order, which is mandatory under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, have been framed ...

Chandi Charan Nandi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. In this OA, the applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondent No. 3 to give him employment to any one of the categories and/or posts for which combined examination and interview were held by the Staff Selection Commission in respect of advertisement dated 18.3.88 for appointment to the posts of Inspector of Central Excise, Income-tax etc.2. The case of the applicant is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.3.88 published by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC for short) for holding a combined examination for appointment to the posts of Inspector of Central Excise, Examiner & Preventive Officers in various Customs Houses, Inspector of Income-tax and Asst. Enforcement Officer in the Directorate of Enforcement, he made an application in prescribed proforma. A copy of the advertisement is at Annexure-F. The applicant gave his first preference for the post of Inspector of Income-Tax. By a letter dated 4.8.89 (Annexure-A), the Asst. Collector (Admn.), Central Excise, C...

Munni Rajak Vs. Sumit Banerjee and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)1CALLT251(HC),2002(1)CHN735

A Talukdar, J. 1. An Order of acquittal recorded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, First Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 1997 thereby absolving the accused opposite party in CRR No, 1577 of 1999 has given rise to these two Revisional Applications. While the petitioner, in CRR No. 1577 of 1999, who was the victim girl, moved this Application being aggrieved with the Order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused opposite party. The petitioner in CRR No. 1651 of 1999 who was the scribe of the FIR, was examined as P.W.3 during the trial for expunction of certain remarks made against him in the body of the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.2. Since both the matters were heard together, this common judgment will dispose of both the Revisional Applications.3. Shri De, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in both the Revisional Applications has questioned the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused opposite party on several grounds. H...

Banbehari Dalapati Vs. Amulya Dalapati and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)1CALLT302(HC),2002(2)CHN216

A. Talukdar, J.1. This is a Revlsional application which is directed against a Judgment and order dated 29.2.2000 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court. Mldnapore in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 1/November 1998 corresponding to G.R Case No.900 of 1992 thereby recording an order of acquittal in favour of the accused/opposite parties in respect of charge framed against them under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 325, 427, 448. 436 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The order of acquittal has been sought to be assailed in this Revlsional application on behalf of the complainant/petitioner on the ground that the evidence on record was not properly assessed by learned trial Court and although the F.I.R. was lodged at 6.15 pm. where as the Incident took place at 2.00 p.m. on 01.6.1992 there was no scope of concoction and fabrication of the version and P.W.I who himself was a victim of the incident could not be disbelieved and in view of the fact that there was pr...

Lajjaram Singh and ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Singh and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)1CALLT374(HC),2002(2)CHN56

D.P. Sengupta, J. 1. In the present revlsional application the petitioners have challenged an order dated 28.11.2000 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Hare Street P.S. Case No. 782 of 1998 under Sections 120B/406/468/471/419/420/423/424/506 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present opposite party No. 1, who lodged a petition of complaint before the learned C.M.M., Calcutta on 21.2.98. The said complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Dept.. Lalbazar for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, the allegations made in the said complaint is as follows: -The father of the complainant/O.P. No. 1 died a premature death at the age of 30 years, when the present opposite party No. 1 was a child of 7 years. Taking advantage of the helpless condition of the widow and her three children, the present accused/petitioner No. 1 induced the mother of the O.P. No. 1 to en...

Swapan Kumar Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)1CALLT419(HC),2002(2)CHN96

D.P. Sengupta, J.1. In the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the inaction on the part of the confiscating authority in not paying the value/price of the seized articles namely 338 bags of mustard seeds which was damaged due to the negligence of the authorities and which was directed to be returned to the petitioner by this Court 2. 338 bags of mustard seeds were seized by the police from the premises of the petitioner. On a prayer for confiscation made by the I.O. a confiscation proceeding was Initiated before the Additional Collector, Nadia, who by an order dated 25.9.97 confiscated the seized articles. Challenging such order of confiscation the petitioner preferred an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said application was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 30.4.98. As an order of stay was granted by this Court the order of confiscation could not be given effect to.3. The petitioner thereaf...

Priyabrata Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)3CALLT484(HC)

S. Banerjea, J. 1. All the appeals having been filed against the same judgment and order dated 5th of August, 1999 of the trial Court passed in the same writ proceeding being W.P. No. 254 of 1999, the appeals have been heard analogously and will be governed by the same judgment. 2. The appeal No. 56 of 1999 has been preferred by the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 254 of 1999 who is a member of West Bengal Higher Judicial Service. 3. The writ petitioner/appellant who at the relevant point of time, was posted as a Special Judge (E.C. Court)-cum-Additional District and Session Judge, South 24-Parganas, Alipore by the order dated 28th June, 1998 was transferred by the High Court as an Additional District & Sessions Judge, Islampur in the District of West Dinajpur. 4. Prior to that the petitioner made a representation to the Additional Registrar, High Court against the appointment of the respondent No. 6 who is junior to the petitioner in the post of District & Sessions Judge,Darjeeling. The a...

Rabindra Nath Majumder Vs. Ardhendu Dutta and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)1CALLT344(HC)

B. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This revisional application is at the Instance of tenant/defendant in a suit for eviction and is directed against order dated July 23. 2001 passed by the learned Civiljudge, Senior Division, 2nd Court', Barasat in Misc, Appeal No. 137 of 1997 thereby affirming order No. 41 dated June 19, 1997 passed by the learned Munsif. 3rd Court, Sealdah in Misc. Case No. 17 of 1990. 2. The opposite parties filed a suit being Title Suit No. 503 of 1986 against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. Ultimately, the said suit was decreed ex parte on December 21, 1987. 3. Long thereafter, on March 2, 1990 the present petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said ex parte decree on the ground of non-service of summons. The said application gave rise to Misc. Case No. 17 of 1990. 4. The case made out by the petitioner in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code was that no summons was ev...

Tridib Jyoti Ghosh Vs. Trustees for the Improvement of Calcutta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2002)1CALLT425(HC)

P.K. Ray, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent.2. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 11th July, 1985 issued by the Assistant Estate Manager, Calcutta improvement Trust whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to surrender the vacant possession of the Flat No. A-11. CIT Scheme No. B.I.S.I., 7/1, Rajendra Mullick Street, Calcutta-700 007 upon rejecting his prayer for mutation of his name in place of the original tenant, Jogmaya Chowdhury, who breathed last leaving behind two heirs, the sons. The petitioner moved the writ Court earlier praying mutation of his name in place of deceased, Jogmaya Chowdhury, when by the order dated 20th March, 1985 B.P. Banerjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) disposed of the said writ application directing the petitioner to file a fresh representationupon annexing 'No Objection' certificates, if any, of the legal heirs of the deceased, Jogmaya Chow...