Kolkata Court November 2004 Judgments

A.K. Mukhopadhyay @ Amiya Mukhopadhyay Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(3)CHN385,2005(4)ESC2470

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner, an Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force, was punished in a minor penalty disciplinary proceeding, and the decisions given by the disciplinary authority dated August 30th 1999 and the appellate authority dated January 18th, 2000 have made him aggrieved. He challenges those decisions in this writ petition.2. The English translation of the allegations made in the chargesheet dated July 15th, 1999, issued by the Assistant Commandant of the petitioner's unit in Hindi, is as under:-CISF No : 871300085 Ins./Exe. A. K. Mukhopadhyay is at present working a Com/Comm in A. Coy. On 8.7.1999 at about 10-45 hrs. when the Commandant Sri S. L. Prasad was travelling on the barrage, he noticed a mini bus parked near BPI near National Highway No. 34 near the Security Zone. Inspector/Exe. A. K. Mukhopadhyay, despite being near the BPI did not take any action. Upon being asked by the Commandant he gave no reply. Considering the present critical situation...

ils Cargo (P.) Ltd. Vs. Kanak Projects Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This winding up petition relates to a claim for money and lent advanced as well as money paid on behalf of the company for discharge of their liabilities. The company from time to time acknowledged payment as would appear from several acknowledgements annexed to the winding up petition. Ultimately, a sum of Rs. 6,51,652 became due and payable. Statutory Notice of Demand was replied to by the company through their Advocate-on-record wherein except dispute raised on account of confirmation of accounts no categoric averment was made by the company. In the Affidavit-in-opposition the company have taken the plea that the winding up petition is not maintainable as the Statutory Notice of Demand was not served at the registered office of the company, In support of such contention the company has relied upon the Xerox copy of the Certificate of Registration dated 6th July, 2000 wherein it appears that the registered office of the company was situated as on that date ...

Mr. Babban Ram Vs. Uco Bank and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2005)1CALLT535(HC),2005(4)CHN55,(2005)IIILLJ111Cal

J.K. Biswas, J.1.The writ petitioner is challenging the order dated March 18th, 2002 whereby the second respondent, the executive director of UCO Bank, has imposed the penalty, which is:-'The Basic Pay of Shri Bannan (sic) Ram is lowered by two stages for two years. Further, he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay.'2. While working as chief cashier of the bank a charge-sheet dated December 2nd, 2000 was served on the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated June 23rd, 2001 holding that the charge had not been proved. By final order dated July 12th, 2001 the disciplinary authority exonerated the petitioner.3. On February 4th, 2002 the second respondent, as the reviewing authority, suo motu issued a show cause notice. He stated that, in his opinion, on assessment of the evidence the petitioner did not deserve to be fully exonerated, ...

Abul Basar Laskar Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2005)1CALLT372(HC),2005(1)CHN201,2005CriLJ2737

1. This is an application for grant of bail. The case of the petitioner is that he was taken into custody on 23rd October, 2002 and tilt this date he is not released on bail. Seven witnesses were examined in the trial but adjourned. Now nine witnesses including two members of public, Doctor and other witnesses are awaiting for the purpose of examination. Even after shifting of the matter to the Fast Track Court as far as back on 24th June, 2004, the situation has not been changed. The prosecution case is that there is no fault on the part of the prosecution. A note has been placed by the Officer-in-Charge of Usthi P. S. It appears from there that an accused made an application for approver and the learned Trial Judge granted pardon to the accused on 29th July, 2003. However, a revisional application was made by a co-accused before this High Court which was heard and disposed of and in this way the trial was delayed for a considerable period till 31st January, 2004. It has been further ...

Liberty Commodities Ltd. Vs. Lmj International Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(1)CHN369

ORDER1. This is an application for preferring an urgent appeal and obtaining an order of stay in respect of an impugned order dated the 10th of November, 2004.2. The order was passed in two completely separate matters, one being an interlocutory application made for dismissal of an admiralty suit in which an order for arrest had been made earlier on the 26th of October, 2004, it was alternatively prayed for, that the order of arrest or the direction of furnishing of security to the extent of Rs. 3 crorea be dispensed with.3. The second matter was an application made under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in regard to a foreign arbitration which parties had agreed would commence and conclude in London under the Rules of the Grain and Feed Trade Association there, located at 6, Chapel Place, the rules of it being commonly known as the GAFTA RULES.4. The parties to the arbitration agreement were 'Liberty' i.e., the appellant in the Section 9 matter and LMJ Internati...

Bidyadhar Palai and anr. Vs. Loomtex Engineering Private Limited and o ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(1)CHN625,[2005(106)FLR235],(2005)IILLJ294Cal

Altamas Kabir, J.1. The Government West Bengal in its Labour Department had by an order dated 15th March, 2001, referred an industrial dispute between M/s. Titagarh Jute Mill No. 2, Licensee: Loomtex Engineering Private Limited and their workman represented by Thomas Duff and Associate Employees' Union to the 4th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Calcutta, for adjudication on the following issue :'Whether the termination of service of Shri Pasupati Biswas and 35 others (as per list enclosed), by way of refusal of employment with effect from 11.10.1999 is justified and to what relief, if any, are they entitled?2. On receipt of the order of reference notices were issued to the parties and both the parties appeared and filed their written statements separately. Both the parties exchanged documents and adduced evidence and upon considering the said materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the parties the learned Tribunal by its award dated 22nd January, 2004, held that the...

Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. Tushar Kanti Roy and ors ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(2)CHN269

Altamas Kabir, J.1. The respondent No. 1 was at the relevant point of time a Meter Inspector in the Revenue Department of the appellant company. On 25th May, 1985, he was assigned to inspect the meter of one Gopal Chandra Nath, a consumer of the appellant company. On 27th May, 1985, the said consumer lodged a complaint with the appellant company that the respondent No. 1 had demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- not to disconnect supply and to settle the matter regarding non-consumption at the workshop of the respondent No. 1. The consumer was asked to meet the respondent No. 1 at his office with the money on 27th May, 1985.2. On receipt of the complaint, the appellant caused a preliminary investigation into the complaint and thereafter issued a show-cause notice to the respondent No. 1 on 3rd June, 1985. Not being satisfied with the reply to the said show-cause notice, the appellant company issued a chargesheet to the respondent No. 1 on 15th June, 1985. On 19th June, 1985, an Enquiry Committee...

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Indradeo Yadav and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(2)CHN542

Altamas Kabir, J. 1. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 in the appeal was dismissed from service of the appellant company on the ground of unauthorized absence for a period of about three months. Challenging the said order dismissing him from service, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 1356 of 1997, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 13th September, 2003.2. Apart from the merits of the order challenged in the writ petition, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the appellant as to whether this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ application in view of the fact that the entire cause of action for the writ petition had arisen beyond the territorial limits of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Considering the preliminary objection first the learned Single Judge held that having regard to the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of a ...

Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and an ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005CriLJ1126

ORDERDebiprasad Sengupta, J.1. In the present application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of proceeding being case No. C-241/2003 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta.2. The aforesaid proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present opposite party No. 2. In the petition of complaint, it was alleged that against the promulgation of the Ordinance, by which the rates of Court-fees were enhanced, the Bar Council of W.B. started movement against such enhancement of Court-fees and asked the practising lawyers for abstaining themselves from attending Courts. When the lawyers were observing 'Cease Work,' a news item was published in the editorial column of the daily Bengali newspaper Ananda Bazar Patrika on 23-11-2002, in which the character of the lawyers in this country was scandalised. The defamatory publication dated 23-11-2002 under the heading 'Kaje Jog din' is as follow...

Secretary, West Bengal State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Deb Kumar ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(4)CHN24

1. Heard ld. counsel for the appellant. This matter has been taken up at the second call, even then nobody appears for the respondent No. 1.2. This appeal is from an order dated 30.7.03 passed by a ld. Judge of the Writ Court in connection with Writ Petition No. W.P. 11460 (W) of 2003. By the said judgment and order under appeal the ld. Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ application without calling for the affidavits from the West Bengal State Electricity Board, the appellant before us. While disposing of the writ petition the ld. Judge directed the Board to bear the cost of installation of transformer in connection with grant of electricity line for the submersible pump to be installed by the writ petitioner. The ld. Judge while giving such direction relied on two judgments of this Court, one in the case of Kartick Chandra Ghosh v. W.B.S.E.B., reported in : AIR2000Cal218 and one in the case of B. Chaudhury v. W.B.S.E.B. and Ors., reproted in ********. Ld. counsel for the appella...