Kolkata Court May 2003 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.
Federation of MMTC Employees' Union and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOi) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT236(HC),(2004)ILLJ1029Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. The writ petitioners-Union being MMTC Employees' Union and the Secretary of such Union made this writ petition challenging the letter impugned dated 8th April, 2003 where under the General Manager (P) referred the matter to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India for obtaining permission for closer under sub Section 1 of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The grounds are annexed with the notice. It was also informed to the Secretary General of the Union by a letter dated 9th April 2003. Both the letters are marked as annexure-P14 to the writ petition.2. This writ petition has been moved before this Court upon notice to the Company by saying that prayer for seeking permission by the authority of MMTC is neither justifiable nor can be considered by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India. The Union has also made representation to the company on 24th April 2003 with a copy to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of ...
Smt. Bidya Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal63,(2003)184CTR(Cal)97,[2003]263ITR52(Cal)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. This is an application for review of an order passed on June 12, 2000, in F. M. A. No. 484 of 2000[2000] 245 ITR 196 (F. M. A. T. No. 3124 of 1992) by the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Y. R. Meena and Mr. Justice R. K. Mazumdar, as their Lordships then were.2. Mr. Prosad has taken three grounds, the first of which is that while the judgment was reserved, Mr. Prosad was asked to submit his written notes on submissions but before written notes on submissions could be submitted the judgment was delivered. Mr. Prosad, in his written notes of submission, had cited some decisions, which he could not cite at the time of hearing. Since the judgment was delivered before he could submit his written submissions, those decisions were not considered, and further the court had assured that there would be further hearing before the delivery of the judgment but that was not adhered to. The second question he raised is that the court did not take into consideration ...
Sri Nikhil Chandra Pal and ors. Vs. the West Bengal Board of Secondary ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT261(HC)
J.K. Biswas, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is against the judgment and order dated 23rd April 2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 543 of 2002. The writ petition was filed by the four appellants. By the impugned judgment and order the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss it.2. While hearing the application for interim order, we took up the hearing of the appeal itself, by treating it as on the day's list by consent of the parties.3. The writ petition was filed challenging a decision dated 29th January 2002 given by the Director of School Education, West Bengal (in short 'D.S.E.'). The decision of the D.S.E. was that the appellants were not entitled to get approval of their appointment as organizer teachers of 'Thiba Anchal High School' (hereinafter referred to as 'the school') situated at Pose Office: Bhatra, District: Birbhum of the State of West Bengal.4. The relevant portion of the decision of the D.S.E. is quoted below:-'Heard the parties. Consider the submission including the...
Yellappa B. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: (2003)IIILLJ1056Cal
Indira Banerjee, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the action of the Respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as respondent SAIL in not reinstating the petitioner in service and paying him his arrear salary and allowances, notwithstanding an order dated passed by the learned Eighth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal rejecting the application of respondent SAIL under Section 33(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The facts pertaining to this writ application are briefly narrated hereinafter:The petitioner claims to have been a permanent workman of respondent SAIL.According to the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as a workman of the Bangalore Branch of respondent SAIL on or about August 20, 1971.3. The petitioner has alleged that he was an Office Bearer of the SAIL Employees Association, which according to the petitioner, is the only registered and recognised union in the Bangalore Branch of respondent SAIL.4. It is alleged that in 1991-92, 1531 M.T. of steel ...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Pioneer Construction
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)ARBLR199(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. By a memo dated April 7, 1999 the petitioner accepted the tender submitted by the respondent for certain works of renovation at the Central Store Building Survey of India at 15, Wood Street, Calcutta. Clauses 5 and 7 of the letter of acceptance of Tender being relevant herein are quoted below :'...................................................................................................................................................................................... (5) You are requested to attend this office to complete the formal agreement within 7 (seven) days of the receipt of this letter.(7) You are also requested to please obtain a valid licence under the Labour (R&A;) Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 before the commencement of the work and continue to have a valid licence till the completion of the work...................................................................................................
Dr. Kalyan Chowdhury Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT165(HC),[2004(101)FLR426]
J. Banerjee, J.1. The instant writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 9.8.02 in O.A. No. 675/2002, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench whereby the learned Tribunal below dismissed an application of the petitioner made against the transfer order dated 25.6.02 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Kolkata to Burdwan on the same post.2. It transpires from the impugned order that the petitioner who was posted as Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-XI on 26.06.2001 and the same post has since been designated as Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata with effect from 1.8.2002. It was alleged that during the financial year 2001-2002, the performance of the department under the applicant's charge was very good as per the total tax collection was concerned. Despite the good performance of the applicant and the D.O. letter dated 15.1.2002 issued by the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes the applican...
Air-conditioning Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Board of Trustees for t ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal79
ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the vires of Sections 49 and 52 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 asking the Court to declare the aforesaid two sections are ultra vires Constitution and therefore enhancement of rent in the schedule framed thereunder are not enforceable, and consequently has challenged the decision of the Board enhancing the rate of rent with effect from 1st May, 1978. This writ petition is seriously opposed by the respondent Port authorities.2. The short fact of the case is that the writ petitioner has taken possession of a plot of land being No. D-403 measuring about 12,140.62 square meters pursuant to a lease agreement dated 1st Sept. 1948 granted for 30 years. While in possession after expiry of 30 years another lease was executed by the respondent Board on or about 10th July, 1981 in favour of the petitioner for a period of thirty years to be computed from 1st May. 1978 with an option for renewal by executing fr...
Biswanath Adhikary Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN458
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 5.2.2001 passed in R.A. No. 11 of 2000 whereby the application in R.A. No. 11 of 2000 was allowed and the order passed on 10.3.1998 by the Tribunal was recalled.3. Facts available in the writ petition are that the petitioner moved an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in respect of his relief relating to revised scale of pay along with admissible benefits, allowances and entitlements in terms of the Government Order dated 18th August, 1997 which was in turn issued in compliance with the judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 162 of 1996.4. After the service of notice upon the respondents a learned Advocate appeared and the matter was adjourned, from time to time. Although opportunities were granted, no reply was filed on behalf of the State-respondents. The original...
East India Electric Supply and Traction Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Cal)6,[2003]263ITR243(Cal)
D.K. Seth, J. 1. The undertaking of the assessee was acquired by the West Bengal State Electricity Board. The cost of such acquisition was to be valued under Section 7A of the Indian Electricity Act. The said Section 7A of the Indian Electricity Act provides that if there is an agreement between the parties the undertaking would be treated to have been valued at the fair market price, in default, the matter has to be referred to an arbitrator and then the award would be treated to be the fair market value of the undertaking. There was no agreement between the parties. The matter was referred to the arbitrator. An award was passed. This award was subjected to litigation that went up to the apex court. Ultimately, the apex court appointed an arbitrator. The arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,02,82,000. This was subjected to assessment, which went up to the Tribunal. The Tribunal assessed the said amount both to capital gains and to income from business, having regard to Section 41(2) of t...
Prafulla Kumar Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT392(HC)
A.K. Bisi, J.1. In the instant suit instituted against the defendant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. the present plaintiffs have sought decree for possession of premises No. 3 Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises), damages or occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 1350/- per month from 15th June, 1983 to 14th August, 1986, mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per day from 15thAugust, 1986 till delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs and some other incidental reliefs.2. Briefly stated the case set out in the plaint is that the original plaintiff Binapani Roy Chowdhury was the owner of the suit premises. By a registered indenture of lease dated 17th September, 1956, the suit premises had been leased out to M/s. Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. for a period of 25 years with effect from 15th August, 1956. The said lease deed contains a clause for option of renewal for a period of 5 years after expiry of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »