Kolkata Court April 2007 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.
Paresh Dey and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-18-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR657]
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2001 passed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellants herein.The writ petitioners, who are the appellants herein were initially appointed as Lower Division Clerks in West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education against on substantive vacancies ad hoc basis. Pursuant to the office order bearing No. S/372 dated 31st December, 1981 issued by the President, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education, total 54 members of the ad hoc staff including the appellants herein were appointed in the substantive posts of Lower Division Clerks w.e.f. 10.10.1981. By the said office order bearing Nos. /372 dated 31.12.1981, another group of employees, namely, the respondent Nos. 5 to 14 were also appointed in the posts of Lower Division Clerks from the posts of Regular Peons. Thus, by the aforesaid office order, 54 ad hoc employees incl...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2007
Reported in: [2007(113)FLR1138]
P.K. Chattopadhyay and Arunabha Basu, JJ.1. The appeal should not be treated as defective since leave has already been granted to present the Memorandum of Appeal without the certified copy. However, Advocate-on-record of the appellants is directed to file the certified copy of the judgment and order under appeal within two weeks from date.Re: C.A.N. 3195 of 20072. This application for stay has been filed in connection with the appeal which has been preferred from the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in connection with the Writ Petition being W.P. 7076 (W) of 2007.3. The appellants-writ petitioners herein filed the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court challenging the strike notice dated 30th March, 2007 on the ground that the same is violative of the provisions of Sections 22,23 and 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.Mr. Mallick, learned senior Counsel representing the appellants, submits that the respondent Unions have called the Stri...
West Bengal Registration Copywriters' Association Vs. State of West Be ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN721
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. All these three applications under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India were heard analogously as those are preferred against the common judgment dated June 22, 2001 passed by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 391 of 1998, T.A. No. 392 of 1998, O.A. No. 2377 of 1999 and O.A. No. 4636 of 1999, all heard analogously before the Tribunal. The T.A. No. 391 of 1998 originates from W.P. No. 1643 of 1996 filed in this High Court by the Registered Association of the Copywriters and was transferred to the Tribunal along with another writ application being W.P. No. 2304 of 1996 and the same was renumbered as T.A. No. 392 of 1998 and the other two were filed by the individual copywriters claiming identical relief direct before the Tribunal.2. The common case made out by the applicants in all the four matters before the Tribunal may be summed up thus:(a) The members of the West Bengal Registration Copywriters' Association as well as the app...
Bhabataran Mahato Vs. State of W.B. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN506,2007CriLJ3954
ORDERSadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner and the Learned Advocate for the State are present.2. Affidavit of service shows that notice was sent to the defacto-complainant by registered post with acknowledgement due, but in spite of that he is not coming forward to contest the revisional application. Under such circumstances, the revisional application is taken up for hearing.3. Heard the learned Advocates for both the sides.4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that over the self-same incident two cases namely G.R. Case No. 114 of 2003 and C.R. case No. 113 of 2003 were instituted. After completion of the investigation G.R. case No. 113 of 2003 was committed to the Court of session as the prima facie case under Section 307, IPC was made out and it is pending for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is submitted that G.R. Case No. 114 of 2003 which also arose out of the self-same incident and which is the counter case of other case, is ...
Nuddea Mills Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: I(2008)BC207,(2007)3CALLT89(HC),[2008]142CompCas394(Cal),[2007(115)FLR630],(2008)IILLJ511Cal
Biswanath Somadder, J.1. All the aforementioned applications are taken up together since identical issues are involved and disposed of by this common Judgment.2. These applications filed by the petitioners are directed against proceedings initiated by the Provident Fund authorities under the provisions of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. All the proceedings have been initiated by the said authorities, by filing of several F.I.Rs with the Naihati police station.3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company, due to uncertainties in the economic situation in the jute industry, became 'sick'. In such circumstances the company made a 'Reference' under Section 15(1) of The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'SICA') before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, 'BIFR') and the same was registered as case No. 273/98. According to the learned sen...
Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Uco Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC412
Dipankar Datta, J.1. This Court has considered the application for impleadment taken out by the guarantors being G.A. No. 3848 of 2006. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the applicant and considering the averments contained in the application, this Court is of the considered view that the presence of the applicant is not at all necessary for effective adjudication of the issue involved in the writ petition. The application for impleadment stands dismissed, without order for costs.2. Petitioner No. 1 (hereafter the company) was extended credit facilities by the respondent-Bank (hereafter the Bank). However, the company failed to clear its dues on time. The Bank filed a suit for recovery of its dues against the company in this Court being Suit No. 457 of 1985. After creation of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A. No. 22 of 1994. Bef...
In Re: Wellman Incandescent India Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-2007
Reported in: [2008]145CompCas228(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. This application was earlier dismissed and the appeal therefrom was disposed of in November 2004, effectively rejecting the reliefs sought, but sugar-coating the dismissal by providing manifold increase in the lease rental in respect of the concerned premises. The alleged mortgagee, claiming that it had been left in the lurch, sought review of the appellate order. In the review the lessor asserted its right to the land. The review was allowed and the earlier order of dismissal was set aside. The applicant now insists upon having the land and claims that the alleged mortgage has no ground to resist it.2. The bounds of adjudication in this second round of the proceedings before the company court have been demarcated in the order of February 22, 2006, passed on review:We, therefore, review the order passed by the Division Bench by recalling the same and sending the matter back to the learned trial judge for considering whether on the date of winding up, there was any...
Binoy Kumar Gupta Vs. Leela Gupta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN491
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 15th June, 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Alipore in complaint case No. C-3308 of 2005 thereby rejecting the application of the accused petitioner for dropping the complaint case due to non-filing of the list of prosecution witnesses in the complaint or by not mentioning names of witnesses for the complainant in the complaint petition filed by the O.P. No. 1.2. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate for the accused petitioner submitted that the marriage between petitioner and O.P. No. 1 was solemnised in the year 1967. Since 1969 the husband and wife are living separately. The O.P. No. 1 wife filed an application against the husband petitioner in the year 2003 claiming maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr. PC. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed in the year 2004. The wife has filed the present complaint in the year 2005 against the husband petitioner for alleged offence under Sec...
Sasthidhar Chowdhury and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)3CALLT260(HC),2008(2)CHN500
Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal and the criminal revisional application are directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum convicting and sentencing the accused persons viz. Sasthidhar Chowdhury, Pradip Chowdhury, Sanat Chowdhury, Sishir Chowdhury, Nilmoni Mondal, Rammoni Mondal and Shyammoni Mondal to suffer RI for one year under Section 147 and to suffer RI for nine years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer RI for a further period of six months under Section 304 part I read with Section 149 IPC with the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.2. Ten persons faced the trial and eight persons were convicted with the sentences as aforesaid and remaining two viz. Balak Mondal and Shaktipada Chowdhury were acquitted of the charges by the learned Trial Court. The defacto complainant Nirodbaran Chowdhury filed the revisional application against the order of acquittal pa...
Ashok Kumar Saboo (Huf) and anr. Vs. Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN533,2007(2)CTLJ72(Cal)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This was an appeal against judgment and order dated 8th September, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition holding that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed on receipt of affidavit on the question of jurisdiction. Naturally learned Trial Judge did not proceed to decide the writ petition on merit. The fact of the case made out in the writ petition is that there have been two agreements for sale and supply of raw materials viz. bamboo, hard wood, bamboo chips for manufacturing papers. One was entered into by and between one M/s. Durga Trading represented by its sole proprietor, Sri Kishore Saboo, the eighth respondent and the respondent No. 1 and another was concluded later between first respondent by the second petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 8 are closely related to each other. In terms of both the contracts raw materials were to be deliver...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »