Kolkata Court April 2007 Judgments
Nishanath Mukhopadhyay Vs. President, State Consumer Disputes Redressa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Cal201,2008(1)CHN835
1. Mr. Chatterjee's client, the appellant before us, has agreed to settle the claim arising out of the two orders passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Redressal Forum. However, this settlement is sought to be arrived at by way of good gesture and not basing on the findings arrived at by the learned Forums. Since no evidence has been led so far as the question of damage is concerned, it was incumbent for the writ Court to examine the judgment and order and findings of both the learned two forums.2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the complaint petition, on the basis of which both the impugned orders have been passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum as well as the State Consumer Redressal Forum, appointed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we find that prima facie case of negligence has, no doubt, been made out but from the pleadings we do not find any particulars, having been mentioned with regard to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Iswar Sitala Thakurani and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: (2007)2CALLT518(HC)
1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the owners of a land whose predecessor had obtained a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction from a Civil Court against the State-respondent and is directed against the order dated 23rd November, 2006 passed by West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 1522 of 2005 (LRTT) thereby refusing to accept the contention of the writ petitioners that their names should be recorded in tune with the decree passed by the Civil Court in their favour.2. The only question that arises for determination in this writ application is whether a tribunal constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, can declare that a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction in favour of the writ petitioners was a nullity as the same was passed in violation of the provisions contained in Section 57B(2) of the West Bengal EstateAcquisition Act, notwithstanding t...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta Vs. Ifteahan Khan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN363
1. The appellants have impugned in this appeal the order dated 11th September, 2006, passed by the learned Single Judge. This impugned order was passed on an application for modification being CAN No. 6823 of 2006, Chairman Board of Trustees us. Ifteahan Khan (K. J. Sengupta, JJ.) (DB) 365 made by the appellants. In this appeal an application has been taken out for appropriate interim relief in this matter.2. Mr. Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the learned Trial Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition at all as the writ petitioner, Iftekar Khan has no locus to file the same. If the writ petition is gone through minutely then it will appear that no affectation of right has been made out by Iftekar Khan in order to maintain the writ petition. There has been no case of any nature, either contractual or otherwise, as against the Port authority having been made out. As such, at the very first instance, the writ petition should have been dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Dipankar Roy Vs. Pranab Kanti Mani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN379
Re: CAN. No. 3366 of 20071. This application has been filed on behalf of the applicants praying for leave to prefer appeal from the judgment and order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 27125 (W) of 2006.2. The learned Counsel representing the applicants submits that the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge will seriously prejudice the interests of the said applicants although the said applicants were not parties to the writ petition.3. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the averments made in this application, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for granting leave to the applicants herein to prefer appeal from the said judgment and order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge.4. Accordingly, leave is granted to the applicants herein to prefer appeal from the order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P....
Tag this Judgment!Meera Roy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN1015
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus.2. It is the grievance of the petitioner namely, Smt. Meera Roy that her husband has been taken into custody by the Provident Fund Authority, although such Provident Fund Authority is not legally authorised to take any person into custody.8. The learned Advocate appearing for the Provident Fund Authority submits that the husband of the petitioner being an employer was detained in custody for non-payment of provident fund dues amounting to Rs. 2,47,031/- (Rupees two lakhs forty-seven thousand thirty-one only) for the period from September, 2003 to August, 2005. The learned Advocate of the Provident Fund Authority also refers to Section 8B(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and submits that in view of the provisions of the Act, the Provident Fund Authority is empowered to arrest a person and detain in...
Tag this Judgment!Pallav Kumar Banerjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN345
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioners. The said writ petitioners moved the writ petition being W.P. No. 4361 (W) of 1997 challenging the notice issued under Section 5 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 as well as the notification published in the Calcutta Gazette on 14th October, 1996 under Sub-section (la) of Section 4 of the said Act of 1948 for acquisition of Premises No. 11, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata.2. From the records it appears that another writ petition was moved earlier by the said writ petitioners challenging the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the said Act of 1948 which was numbered as C.R. No. 15177 (W) of 1979. The said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by the order dated 10th September. 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the following manner:(1) Since the order of requisition has been continuing from the year 1979, the concerned Land Acquisi...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sukhada Lahiri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN7
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 6th January, 2004 has held that the Process Servers were entitled to Scale No. 6 of 1981 with effect from the date of their joining. Aggrieved by this order the State has preferred this writ petition. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows:The Process Servers who were the applicants before the learned Tribunal prayed for the relief granted by the Tribunal on the following grounds:a) In paragraph 7.5 the contention is that the Process Servers working in different Courts of Law, Statutory Tribunals and in the office of Collector of different districts of West Bengal discharge the same duties and responsibilities undertaken by the Seal Bailiffs working in the City Civil Court and the Presidency Small Causes Court, if not more onerous duties.b) In paragraph 7.20 it is contended that by a memo dated 2nd December, 1992, a copy whereof is Annexure 'F' to the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Uday Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN433
Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order No. 2 dated 12.03.2002 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No. 1380 of 2001. The learned Tribunal has observed by the impugned order that the writ applicant has failed to fulfil the primary condition for getting a job on the compassionate ground and so the application has been dismissed.2. Fact of the case in short is that the father of the writ applicant, late Kali Kinkar Chatterjee, was a Group-D employee in the office of the Assistant C.M.O.H., Kalna, District Burdwan and he died-in-harness on 19.12.1998. Thereafter on 04.02.1999 the writ applicant filed a petition praying for a job on the compassionate ground before the Director of Health Service, Calcutta. Accordingly, a three-member committee was formed and this committee after holding an enquiry submitted a report recommending for an appointment of the writ applicant. But the Director of Health Services did not give any app...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd. Vs. Kothari Metals Ltd. Etc.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Cal207
ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. The problem is not so much in the question that is posed but in the approaches of the two parties that such query has an obvious answer - the petitioner and the company each insists that there is only one view, diametrically opposed to the other, that is possible.2. The fates of these nine petitions, clubbed together and heard on the solitary issue, hang on that one question which, without doubt, requires to be tested. There is a minor advantage that the petitioner in C.P. No. 197 of 2005 enjoys. Such deviation will entail a different form of order if the question is answered in favour of the petitioners.3. The facts are brief and not much in dispute. The company cites a legal embargo and the petitioners claim that such defence is an excuse and a cloak for the company's inability to pay. The company made a reference to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) upon it becoming a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) ...
Tag this Judgment!UjjaIn Nagar Palika Nigam Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2007
Reported in: [2009]149CompCas433(Cal)
Indira Banerjee, J.1. The main issue involved in these two appeals under Rule 164 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, made by a judge's summons supported by affidavit, is the admissibility of post liquidation claims against a company in liquidation.2. In these two appeals, Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam established under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, being the applicant, has challenged four several notices, all dated January 24, 2006, of the official liquidator, two of which are notices of admission of proof of debts, and the other two notices of rejection of proof of debts.3. By the notices of admission of proof of debts, the official liquidator has admitted the claims of the applicant towards property tax and towards water tax, for the factory premises and staff quarters of the company in liquidation at Ujjain, in part.4. The official liquidator has allowed only Rs. 2,79,955 towards property tax and only Rs. 2,162.20 towards water tax as against a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »