Kolkata Court December 2005 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.
Food Corporation of India and anr. Vs. Appellate Authority Under the P ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN395
Soumitra Sen, J. 1. The above two writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioner challenging an order passed by the Appellate Authority and Regional Labour Commissioner. The points of law involved in both the writ applications being identical, both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing.2. The principal question involved is whether the respondent No. 3 who was an employee of the Government of West Bengal and was in deputation with the petitioner would be entitled for payment of gratuity taking into account his past service with the State of West Bengal before being absorbed in the regular service with the petitioner.3. The respondent No. 3 was sent on deputation by the Government of West Bengal to the petitioner and worked with the petitioner from 12th December, 1966 to 30th June, 1984 and thereafter on and from 1st of July, 1984 has been permanently absorbed with the petitioner in terms of a policy circular being No. 21 of 1984. The respondent No. 3 in accor...
Asim Kumar Saha Vs. Nepal Mahato and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN448
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application is directed against judgment and order dated 20.9.02 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Criminal Appeal No. 8/02 thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.4.02 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short CJM), Purulia in complaint Case No. 36/2000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short N.I. Act) thereby sentencing the accused petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- i.d. to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months with further direction that if the amount of fine be paid, Rs. 1,49,400/- out of the fine amount shall be paid to complainant O.P. No. 1 Nepal Mahato as compensation. Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the order of affirmation of sentence by the learned Sessions Judge the accused petitioner has preferred the instant revisional application.2. Mr. Himangshu De, learned Advocate appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that handwriting over the che...
Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Indian Explosive Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal97,II(2007)BC499,2006(1)CHN659
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 1 in a suit for declaration and recovery of money and is directed against the order dated 30th September, 2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 9th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 34 of 2003 thereby disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondent No. 1 by passing an order restraining the appellant from transferring or alienating schedule 'B' property.2. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner in the 4th Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore being Title Suit No. 34 of 2003 thereby praying for declaration that the claim of the respondent No. 1 on account of refund of advance of Rs. 4,20,41,622/- is a secured claim and that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to be treated as a secured creditor of the present appellant and for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 5,27,62,236/- in...
Acquet Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN424
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Both the writ petitions have similarity on fact and in law as the controversies therein raised and reliefs sought for are common and identical. In both the cases the petitioners are the promoters, developers and builders and they have acquired respective plots of land by the side of VIP Road now (Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue). The petitioners in the first mentioned writ petition are concerned with premises Nos. 50/1,50/2,50/3,50/4, 50/5, Gollaghata Street, Kolkata - 700 048 situate within the jurisdiction of 24-Parganas (North). The petitioners in the second mentioned writ petition are concerned with 290/1, Canal Street, Kolkata. Both the aforesaid plots of land are situated within the South Dumdum Municipal area. The admitted fact on both the cases is that the petitioners acquired the lands and developed the same after having obtained permission from all concerned and, in fact, they have obtained sanction of the building plans originally for certain stories. Th...
Sharmistha Gon Vs. Habib Ahmed and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN337
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application has been filed by the accused petitioner assailing the order dated 7.6.05 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Arambagh in Case No. C.R. 245 of 1998 thereby directing production of the original marriage register from the office of the Birth, Death and Marriage Registrar, West Bengal for proving a marriage certificate allegedly issued by P.W. 9 Mira Mukherjee, the Marriage Registrar who refused to identify her signature on the Marriage Registration Certificate produced in Court.2. Mr. Ashok Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 15.9.01 framing charges against this accused petitioner and another was challenged before this Court in revisional application being C.R.R No. 2390 of 2001. This Court directed that there is no material to frame charge against the other accused Abhijit Das under Section 406 or 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short 1...
Sunil Chowdhury Vs. Arup Kumar Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN347
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. The first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession and is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25th June, 2003 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1616 of 1999 thereby passing a decree of declaration that the defendant therein was a licensee in respect of the suit property and permanent injunction restraining him from running any coaching centre in the suit room or from using the suit room for business purpose. The learned Trial Judge further passed a decree for khas possession in favour of the plaintiff by evicting the defendant.2. The respondent filed the aforesaid suit being Title Suit No. 1616 of 1999 thereby praying for declaration that the appellant was a licensee in respect of the suit premises and his licence had been duly revoked and that he was not entitled to use the said room for running coaching centre or for a...
State Bank of India Vs. Taril Appliances and Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (In L ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal121,II(2007)BC515,2006(2)CHN391
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These are the applications for recalling order dated 19th March, 2002 passed by a Division Bench dismissing those appeals for default along with the prayer of condonation of delay in filing these applications. 2. Being dissatisfied with an order dated 19th March, 1993 passed by a learned Single Judge thereby allowing an application of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for taking of the plaint out of the file and dismissing the suit after rejecting an application filed by the applicant for extension of time for service of summons upon those respondents, the present applicant preferred two separate appeals before the Division Bench of this Court. On 19th March, 2002 when those appeals were called for hearing, as none appeared on behalf of the appellant those appeals were dismissed for default. It may be mentioned herein that at the time of dismissal of those appeals for default even none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3. Subsequently, more than three years therea...
Samarendra Nath Das Vs. Supriyo Maitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN518
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 18.7.03 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short C JM), Alipore taking cognizance of offence on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party (in short O.P.) and the orders dated 14.8.03 and 20.11.04 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1' Court, Alipore issuing process against the petitioner and rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharging him in connection with Complaint Case No. C-1808/03 respectively. When the petitioner moved this revisional application in this Court he obtained an interim order of stay of further proceeding of the said complaint case by an order dated 14.1.05. The de facto complainant O.P. has filed one application being C.R.A.N. No. 598/05 praying for vacating the interim order dated 14.1.05 passed by this Court. I intend to dispose of both the revisional applications being C.R.R No. 175/05 and application being C.R. A.N. No. 598/05 by this comm...
Asansol Iron and Steel Workers' Union Vs. Union of India (UOi) and Ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-2005
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN209
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. Asansol Iron & Steel Workers' Union represented by its Vice-President has moved this writ petition challenging an order dated March 10, 2003 under Ref. No. EL/OD/6/444 issued by Assistant Manager (Personnel), O.D. Through the said circular the Assistant Manager directed inter alia to the extent that all those employees who do not opt for voluntary retirement within 31' March, 2003 would be eligible only for retrenchment compensation as per the Government of India O.M. No. 2(32)/97-DPE (W.C.) dated 5th May, 2000. The petitioner has challenged this memo taking it as termination of employment of those workers who do not opt for VRS.Background2. In the year 1870 Mr. James Erskine founded Bengal Iron Works. In 1880-81 Bengal Iron Works carried on operation in the name of Barakar Iron Works. In 1889 Barakar Iron Works was acquired by Bengal Iron and Steel Company Ltd. In 1892 Mannging Agency passed into the hands of M/s. Martin & Co. and in 1926 name of the company was...
Dilip Kumar Manna Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-15-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN370
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the proceeding being G. R. Case No.366 of 2003 (arising out of Contai P.S. Case No. 120 of 2003 dated 26.09.2003) as also the chargesheet filed on 16.10.2003 pending in the Court of ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Contai.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that Smt. Nandita Manna lodged a complaint inter alia stating that she had a love affair with the present petitioner for about a year prior to her marriage with him by registration on 23.11.97 followed by marriage according to Hindu rites and customs, and in that wedlock a son was born. During her stay in her in-laws' house the petitioner demanded her to bring Rs. 1,00,000/- from her father, and as she did not agree with the said demand, she was subjected to ill-treatment and torture, both physically and mentally by him. The petitioner also did not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »