Kolkata Court July 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.
Bengal Immunity Limited Vs. Mukul Kumar Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT130(HC),[2004(101)FLR34],(2004)IILLJ381Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made by the petitioner company virtually for the purpose of restraining the respondents form proceeding with the criminal case being M624 pending before the respondent No. 3 and withdraw, recall and rescind the certificate and/or the criminal proceeding and order passed therein amongst other prayers which are virtually connected therein.2. The petitioner contended that the company is now constituted under Bengal Immunity Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1984. By reason of the same right, title and interest of the erstwhile company stood transferred to and vest in the Central Government with effect from 1st October, 1984. The nationalization Act provides appointment of Commissioner of Payments for disbursing the claimed amounts against the erstwhile company. Such company is presently sick when an application being Case No. 538 of 1992 is registered with BIFR (Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction). On 13...
A.B.C. Computers Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT25(HC),[2004(102)FLR430]
Amitava Lala, J.1. The learned Judge of the 8th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal was in the seisen of an industrial dispute referred by the appropriate authority of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal vide letter dated 19th April, 1999. The issues under such order of reference are as follows:'(1) Whether denial of permanency to Shri Ashok Kumar Prosad by the Management is justified?(2) To what relief, if any, is he entitled?'2. The Tribunal ultimately held by its award dated 22nd March, 2001 on the basis of the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in 2001(1) LLJ 280 (Management of Panchamalai Estate v. D. Gnanasekharan) that law nowhere states that if the person has worked for more than 240 days in a year he is entitled to be regularised in service. Provision contained in Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act had been enacted merely to protect the right of the workmen from being illegally dismissed from the service. Section 25 of the said Act does...
Smt. Quraisha Bibi Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC215
ORDER35. For all these reasons, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.36. There will be no order as to costs.37. Let Lower Court records, if arrived, be sent down forthwith.Banerjee, J.38. I agree....
Bimal Chandra Mitra Vs. Nemai Palit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2003)3CALLT511(HC),2004(1)CHN289
Narayan Chandra Sil, J. 1. The plaint case in brief is that Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and his brother Nemai Mukherjee being the owners of undivided one third share in premises No. 24/1A, Balaram Ghosh Street, Calcutta executed and registered a deed of lease on 25.7.1964 for a period of 21 years commencing from 1.7.1964 in respect of an open portion of the land measuring about three cottahs at the back side of the premises mentioned above in favour of the defendant for the purpose of business. In terms of that deed of lease defendant agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and to make over and deliver up peaceful and vacant possession of the said land on the expiry of stipulated period of 21 years. Subsequently, on the request of the defendant a further additional space of about 30 sq. ft. was given to the defendant and the monthly rent thereby was increased from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 110/- per month. Thereafter in the year 1966 all the co-owners of the said premises sold the said premises t...
Sri Tridib Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. Sri Ranjit Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT245(HC),2004(2)CHN302
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the learned single Judge was right in directing the Director, Local Bodies, State of West Bengal to make an inquiry to find out whether the appointments given by the Municipality were in terms of the regular recruitment process as well as to cancel the appointments which were to be found, given in violation of the recruitment rules.2. Rampurhat Municipality was having casual workers prior to July, 1998. The State Government by virtue of notification dated 28th July, 1998 appearing at page 15 of the paper book approved creation of 19 posts and permitted the municipality to fill up those posts by way of absorption of casual workers engaged prior to 31st December, 1991 in accordance with the provision of Section 54 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). By virtue of another memo dated 10th May, 1999 the State Government further approved creation of another 19 posts and permit...
Samim Akhtar Vs. Taulib Enterprises and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: II(2004)ACC158,2004ACJ466
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the judgment/award passed by the 14th M.A.C. Tribunal, Alipur, on 12.11.1998. The case of petitioner is that on 3.10.1996 at about 10.30 p.m. he was waiting in the bus stand near the crossing of A.I.C. Bose Road and Alimuddin Street, At that time a trailer bearing No. N 01-A 0794 came at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and knocked down the petitioner. The said vehicle also dashed against two other taxies in the process. As a result of that, the victim sustained severe injuries on his person and he was immediately removed to N.R.S. Hospital where he was admitted and treated up to 3.12.1996, operation was done on the left leg of the petitioner and his right leg was completely plastered. The victim at the material time was working as a tailor in the tailoring shop styled as Alpha Tailors situated at 19A, Mirza Galib Street and he used to earn Rs. 500 to Rs. 550 per week. As a result of that he ...
Sachi Prasad Mukherjee Vs. Pampa Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Cal310
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for partition and is directed against the order dated 14th August 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1st Court), Krishnagar, Nadia in Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 1999 thereby affirming the order dated 29th January 1999 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge (1st Court), Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 50 of 1997.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff also filed an application in connection to the said suit under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property till the disposal of the suit.3. From the records it appears that the suit property originally belonged to one Kunja Kamini Devi. The said Ku...
Sbi Home Finance Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: [2004(101)FLR888],(2004)ILLJ890Cal
Amitava Lala, J.1. SBI Home Finance Limited, petitioner No. 1 company is promoted by the State Bank of India. By making this writ petition by the pen of one Sri Pradip Kumar Bose, a shareholder and Chief Manager, Legal, the petitioner company sought for certain orders in nature of declaration that the show-cause notice dated September 28, 2000 and the order dated November 30, 2000 and January 3, 2001 are illegal, unconstitutional and void. Therefore, the, same should be directed to be withdrawn/revoked/reviewed/cancelled and/or quashed along with the one letter of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in the month of September, 2000. At the interim stage, the petitioner company obtained an interim order for not releasing a sum of Rs. 22,79,379 under an order of attachment. Such sum was lying in an account of State Bank of India itself. The interim order as above was made for a limited period. On a day when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls, the ...
Kisore Kr. Sen Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT467(HC)
P.K. Ray, J.1. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the parties.2. In the instant application the petitioner a teacher of Ramkrishna Mission High School, Post Office: Sagargachi, District: Murshidabad has challenged the order dated 28th April 2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Murshidabad whereby the petitioner's salary was withheld and the school authority was directed to submit fresh requisition of salary for the month of April, 2003 excluding the names of those teachers including the petitioner for release of salary. This writ application can be disposed of without directing to file an affidavit even, in view of gross illegality in the order itself which is ex- facie on record. The impugned decision of District Inspector of Schools in this writ application reads thus:'GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGALOFFICE OF THE DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLSSECONDARY EDUCATION MURSHIDABNADShiksha Bhawan, P.O. Berhampore West BengalMemo No. 550-q Dated, Berhampore, the 28.4.03From: T...
Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. Vs. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Associatio ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2003
Reported in: (2003)4CompLJ333(Cal)
Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.1. All the above appeals arise against the order passed by a learned Single Judge dated 25 March, 2003. Therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has set aside the disinvestment of Jessop & Co. Ltd.2. The appeal being FMA No. 433 of 2003 has been filed by Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd.; FMA No. 434 of 2003 by Ruia Cotex Ltd.; FMA No. 435 of 2003 by Jessop & Co. Ltd. Staff Association and FMA No. 436 of 2003 Union of India.3. The basic question involved in all these four appeals is whether disinvestment of 72% equity shares of Government of India in Jessop & Co. Ltd., in favour of Ruia Cotex Limited is justified or not.4. For convenient disposal of all these appeals, it may be relevant to give a resume of the facts giving rise to these appeals.5. Initially, a writ petition was filed by Jessop & Co. Ltd. Staff Association represented by its Secretary, Aloke Kumar Brahmachari. By this writ petition, the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »