Kolkata Court December 2006 Judgments

Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Sri Sudama Das and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)1CALLT601(HC)

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. This appeal was heard by us on November 15 2006 when after perusing the Judgment and order under appeal we were greatly embarrassed after going through some of the observations of His Lordship made in the Judgment. We requested three stalwarts of this Court at the bar to address us only on the observations of His Lordship to be discussed hereinafter. Accordingly we adjourned the matter and heard the same on the next date i.e. on November 29, 2006. We, with due respect and gratitude record our deep appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by Mr. Moitra, Mr. Mitra and Mr. Mukherjee, three eminent counsel of this Court.2. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 was an employee of Eastern Coal Fields Limited being a subsidiary of Coal India Limited. Eastern Coal Fields Limited has its registered office within the State of West Bengal so as the holding company. Respondent No.1, however, was working in Mugma Colliery in the district of Dhanbad in the State of Jh...

Parikshit Mishra and ors. Vs. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)3CALLT205(HC),2007(2)CHN652

Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties Facts of the instant case, briefly, are that the petitioners were engaged in the respondent No. 1 company at its Kulty Works in the Town Engineering Department in 1978 and the petitioners have been discharging their duties as Fitters, Mistri, Carpenter and Painter etc and that such duties were permanent in nature The petitioners' case is that the respondent No. 1 was not giving similar benefit to the petitioners like the permanent employees and the petitioners wanted to have their services regularised since the respondent No. 1 has the practice of engaging contractors in various areas for making payment to the employees of the company where works are permanent in nature The petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court in the year 1993 being C.R. No. 12477(W) of 1993 and by order dated 28 3 2000 an Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition wherein it was recorded inter alia that the pe...

Comptroller and Auditor General of India and ors. Vs. Saktipada Das

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2007)IILLJ990Cal

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This writ application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against order dated May 3, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the said Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 filed by the respondent herein by directing the present appellants to consider the case of the respondent by absorbing him against Group-D post immediately in the light of the observation made in the body of the said order,2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ-application may be summed up thus:3. In the past, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the Tribunal below thereby praying for absorbing him in the regular Group-D post after taking into consideration his service of more than eight years in casual vacanc...

S.B.i. Home Finance Ltd. and Kidambi Srinivash Varda Krishnamachari Vs ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(2)CHN268,[2007]138CompCas106(Cal),(2007)3CompLJ338(Cal),[2007]75SCL460(Cal)

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. This is a sequel to an earlier an application of similar effect having been made by the petitioner. That earlier petition being CP No. 275 of 2003, under Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was dismissed on the ground that it was premature and liberty was reserved thereunder for the petitioner to take appropriate steps upon receipt of a further show-cause notice.2. The second show-cause notice has prompted the petitioner to seek to be excused for any offence that he may have committed or for being exonerated if there was no offence. Section 633(2) of the Act empowers the High Court to entertain an application by an officer of a company who has reason to apprehend that any proceeding may be brought against him in respect of negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust. The apprehension in this case was based on notices dated December 31, 2004 that charged the petitioner with the violation of the provisions of Section 628 read with Secti...

Ambika Nahar Exports and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) and o ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN625

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated July 14, 2006 passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, in Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2006 thereby directing the present appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakh in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as condition precedent for hearing an appeal preferred under Section 129A of the Act before the Tribunal.2. Mr. Basu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the customs authority has taken a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the present appeal under Section 130 of the Act on the ground that an order in terms of Section 129E of the same is not appealable under Section 130 thereof. According to Mr. Basu, only the final order passed in terms of Section 129B(1) of the Act can be challenged by way of an appeal under Section 130 of the Act. In support of such contention, Mr. Basu relies upon t...

The Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal and anr. Vs. Swapan Kumar Bh ...

Court: Kolkata

1. All these three writ applications were taken up together as by these applications the selfsame order being Order dated November 23, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in Misc. Application No. 619 of 2006 arising out of the original application being No. 419 of 2006 has been challenged.Re: W.P.C.T. 711 of 20062. The applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, who is the respondent No. 1 before us, complained before the Central Administrative Tribunal that in view of illegal grant of promotion to some Juniors in the W.B.C.S. (Executive) entire, his case has not been sponsored for promotion to I.A.S. cadre in accordance with the rules. According to the applicant, the respondent-authority while promoting some of the juniors did not follow all the directions given by a Division Bench of this Court in an earlier writ application wherein the said Division Bench gave certain directions to the respondent-authority while considering the inter...

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. Vs. Amit Ventures Private Ltd. ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2007Cal49

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This Mandamus Appeal is at the instance of the respondent in a writ application and is directed against order dated September 8, 2006 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 20166 (W) of 2006 thereby rejecting the writ application on the sole ground that a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by a solicitor on the instruction of the creditor was invalid.2. Being dissatisfied, the respondent has come up with the present Mandamus Appeal.3. Mr. Mitra, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vigorously contended before us that the learned single Judge committed a gross error of law in holding that the notice in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act is required to be given by the secured-creditor or its authorised officer himself, but in no case, by their learned advocate on the basis of the instruction, Acc...

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Ivth Industrial Tribunal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2007(113)FLR1090]

Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. This Court has heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned Advocate for the State-respondents and also the learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 54, Briefly, the facts of the present case are as follows:There is no dispute that the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 are persons who have retired from the employment of the petitioner-company. It also appears that there is no dispute that the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 are enjoying their pension in terms of the relevant settlement. It appears that an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 and by an order of reference the following issues were referred to the respondent No. 1 for adjudication:(i) Whether the demand of the retired employees as per list enclosed for pension at higher rates as given to the subsequent retirees is justified?(ii) What relief, it any, are they entitled to?Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 and written statement was also filed ...

Gayatri Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2007Cal233

ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner (a participating tenderer) questioned the selection of the fifth respondent as the successful tenderer in the process initiated by notice dated November 25th, 2002. The short question in the case is whether the fifth respondent was eligible to participate in the process.2. The notice inviting tender (it was mail motor contract) specifically mentioned that the vehicle should be one not having already run more than one lakh kilometers and crossing the age of five. The admitted position is that the vehicle sought to be placed by the fifth respondent was more than five years old. Though the work order was given, he could not work, since this case was pending. The department continued to get the work done by the erstwhile tenderer.3. Counsel for the department submits that the word 'and' appearing in fifth line of page one of the tender notice was to be read as 'or'. He says that the word 'and' had come to be inserted because of a printing erro...

Maple Technologies Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(3)CHN807

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of a writ petitioner and is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which His Lordship refused to entertain the writ application filed by the appellant on the ground that the appropriate remedy of the appellant lay before the Civil Court.2. The appellant before us became the lowest bidder in a tender issued by the University of Animal and Fishery Sciences for supply of the computers and other necessary appliancces and consequently, supplied the required number of the computers and other items. According to the appellant, in spite of supply of the goods, the University authority refused to make payment of the goods supplied wthout disclosing any reason.3. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal.4. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously contended before us that the learned Single Judge refused to exercise j...