Kolkata Court March 2005 Judgments
Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Ninth Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN481,[2005(106)FLR1035],(2005)IIILLJ352Cal
D.K. Seth, J.1. In this appeal three grounds have been taken. The first ground was that the Central Government is the appropriate Government and therefore, the reference made by the State Government was incompetent. The second ground was that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the learned Tribunal could not have assumed jurisdiction and therefore the award was a nullity and is of no effect. The third ground was that it was a discharge simpliciter without stigma in terms of the contract and as such it cannot be held to be an illegal termination without holding an enquiry.2. Alternatively, it was argued that the fact finding body had undertaken an enquiry and the same should be equated with a full-fledged domestic enquiry.3. The shares are held by the Union of India through the President. The policy decisions are taken in respect of the company by the Central Government, therefore, according to Mr. Chakrabo...
Tag this Judgment!Graphite India Limited Vs. Smt. Bandana Bose and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT101(HC)
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being Order No. 40 dated 2nd December 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) , 2nd Court at Alipore m Title Suit No. 40 of 2000.2. The petitioner herein is an applicant for addition of party in the suit.3. By the order impugned, the petitioner's prayer for addition of party in a suit for eviction filed by the opposite party No. 1 against the opposite party No. 2 herein, on the ground of default and subletting, was rejected by the learned Judge.4. The opposite party No. 2 is the admitted tenant of the opposite party No. 1 in respect of the suit property. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that the tenancy agreement stipulates the following condition: 'Not to transfer or assign or sublet or part with the possession of the demised premises or any part thereof without the specific consent in writing of the Lessor except to any of its group or sister ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdus Sovan Vs. Rokia Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: I(2006)DMC181
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 9.1.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Murshidabad in Criminal Motion No. 258 of 2000 affirming the order dated 1.4.2000 passed in Execution Case No. 52 of 1998 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court, Lalbagh, Murshidabad.2. The petitioner's case is that O.P. No. 1 obtained an ex parte order of maintenance @ Rs. 200 p.m. each for self and her child on 2.4.1998 from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Court, Lalbagh in M.R. Case No. 204/ 1997 under Section 125, Cr.P.C. without any notice being served upon the petitioner who on coming to learn about the said ex parte order, filed an application under Section 126(2), Cr.P.C, being registered as Misc. Case 11/1998 on 26.1.1998 for setting aside the said order. O.P. No. 1 in the meantime filed Execution Case being No. 52/1998 which was stayed by the...
Tag this Judgment!Ratipati Bandopadhyay and anr. Vs. Mrinalini Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN440
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order and/or judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Birbhum at Rampurhat in Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1993 affirming the Order No. 66 dated 18th September, 1993 passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court at Rampurhat in Misc. Case No. 16 of 1985.2. The pre-emptors are the petitioners in this revisional application before this Court.3. The application for pre-emption was filed on the grounds of co-sharership as well as vicinage.4. The petitioners claim that Sarat Chandra Mukhopadhyay, the original owner of the case plot gifted 02 satak of land out of 04 satak of land in the case holding in favour of the petitioners herein by a registered deed of gift dated 4th December, 1961. Thus, the petitioners became the co-sharers in respect of the said case plot with the said Sarat Chandra Mukhopadhyay.5. On the death of Sarat Chandra Mukhopadhyay, his son Gopal Chandra ...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Narayan Kirtaniya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ368CAT
1. How to treat the period in between the date of relieving till the date of joining on transfer, particularly when the concerned official did not discharge duties and functions of the post concerned and validity of such order is upheld by the Court, is the question posed in the present O.A.2. Admitted facts are that: The applicant belonging to SC category joined initially as LDC in the year 1957 and earned various promotions.He was promoted as Public Relations Officer on ad hoc basis on 18th July, 1994 and was transferred from Calcutta to Jaipur vide order dated 14.3.1985. Accordingly, he was relieved to join the said post as Jaipur on 15th March, 1985, but did not join. Ultimately, he reported for duty only on 7th August, 1989.3. Being aggrieved by the said transfer and release order, he submitted representation dated 16th March, 1985, which came to be rejected on 30th March, 1985. He was informed that failing to join Jaipur would invite disciplinary proceedings against him. The afo...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Chand Bhansali Vs. Hindusthan Development Corporation Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN454
P.N. Sinha, J.1. As the factual aspects and points of law involved in these revisional applications are identical I intend to dispose of these three revisional applications by this common judgment and Order.2. Before I enter into merits of the revisional applications, it would be fruitful to mention the facts of the case as disclosed in the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party M/s. Hindusthan Development Corporation Limited in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Calcutta which was transferred to the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta. In the petition of' complaint the complainant arrayed nine accused persons out of which accused No. 1 is the company namely CRB Capital Markets Limited. Mr. Shubh Karan Jain was arrayed as accused No. 3 and Mr. Fateh Chand Bhansali was arrayed as accused No. 4 and Mrs. Manjula Bhansali was arrayed as accused No. 5 and the last three abovenamed accused persons as petitioners have prefer...
Tag this Judgment!Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court and ors. Vs. Jayanta Kumar Dasgu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN52
Soumitra Pal, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgement and order dated 13th April, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 6189 (W) of 1985, allowing the writ petition and by making the rule absolute.2. The facts are that the petitioner (since deceased) was appointed as a Munsif in the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) against permanent vacancy. In terms of his appointment he was to remain on probation for a period of two years. While on probation, the petitioner underwent training. However, on 5.10.84 during probation, the petitioner was served with the notice of termination which was effective from 6.10.84. The said notice of termination was under challenge as, according to the respondent/petitioner, it was mala fide and was in colourable exercise of powers since it was issued without holding any enquiry and without giving the petitioner any opportunity of being heard.3. Before the learned Single Judge the parties filed their respective affidavits.4. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Mosammat Mamuda Bibi Vs. Sk. ManiruddIn @ Monirul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN62
P.N. Sinha, J.1. As the factual matrix and principles of law involved in these two revisional applications are identical I intend to dispose of both the revisional applications by this common judgment and order.2. Mosammat Mamuda Bibi as petitioner filed CRR No. 1594/04 in this Court assailing the judgment and order dated 21.4.04 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Diamond Harbour in Misc. Case No. 197/97 thereby allowing maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month for herself and @ Rs. 1000/- per month for her minor son totalling Rs. 2500/- per month as maintenance with effect from the date of the order. During the course of hearing in this Court it transpired that, challenging the same order the husband Sk. Maniruddin has preferred a criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore which was registered in that Court as Criminal Motion No. 330 of 2004. This Court under its supervisory power and to avoid conflicting decisions called for the rec...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Kishorepuria Vs. General Manager, Securities and Exchange Bo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC538,[2005]127CompCas18(Cal),(2005)4CompLJ525(Cal),[2005]63SCL1(Cal)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by the notice issued by the General Manager, Securities and Exchange Board of India, dated 26 August 2004.2. By the notice he was asked to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against him under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Section 11B, read with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 1995, Regulation 12, and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, Regulation 11, for the role he played in the process of irregular allotment of preferential shares by Padmini Technologies Ltd. in the year 1999.3. Section 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 empowered the Board [Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEB1)] to make regulations for carrying out the p...
Tag this Judgment!Priyamvada Devi Birla, Rajendra Singh Lodha Vs. Laxmi Devi Newar and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN544
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. First three mentioned applications have been taken out by one Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar, one Smt. Radha Devi Mohta defendant No. 1 herein, defendant No. 2 herein and, jointly by four persons viz. one K.K. Birla, Basant Kr. Bina, Ganga Prasad Birla, Y.B. Birla, for identical interlocutory reliefs viz. for appointment of Administrator and/or a committee headed by an independent and impartial Administrator be appointed in and over the estate left by the said Priyamvada Devi Birla, since deceased (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased) and also order of injunction restraining the propounder/plaintiff from dealing with disposing of any of the assets or properties of the deceased and/or exercising any right and control of the companies. The two ladies above being the defendants in the suit are the sisters-in-law of the said deceased (husband's sisters) and they have been contesting the grant of probate in relation to the will said to be the last one of the said...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »