Kolkata Court July 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.
Smt. Anjali Mukherjee Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)3CALLT456(HC)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ-petitioner and is directed against order dated December 22, 2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship rejected the writ-application on the ground that in view of the provisions contained in Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the writ-application was not maintainable.Being dissatisfied, the present mandamus-appeal has been preferred.2. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant laboriously contended before us that the learned single Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in His Lordship by not entertaining the writ-application. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the writ-petitioner, not being an employee of the State Government, but a widow of a retired employee, there was no scope of moving the State Administrative Tribunal under the provision of Section 19 of the Act. Mr. Mukherjee further contends...
Madhulata Kankani Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN558
Dipankar Datta, J.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.4.2007 passed by the Special Officer (Building) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereafter the Corporation) in Demolition Case No. 12-D/06-07, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present petition. By the said order, the Special Officer has directed the petitioner to demolish the impugned unauthorised constructions at her own cost and risk within 15 days from date of communication thereof, failing which the Corporation would be entitled to demolish the same at her risk and cost.2. Mr. Chakraborty and Mr. Das Adhikari, learned Counsel for the Corporation and the private respondents respectively, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition. They contended that Section 415 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereafter the Act), inter alia, provides a forum for appeal against any order passed under Section 400 thereof and, therefore, the petitioner ...
Chandra Kumar Dhanuka and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas101(Cal),[2008]83SCL296(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Of the 12 show-cause notices in respect of which the present proceedings have been instituted, four have been pressed with more vigour than the others, though the Registrar has made no concession in respect of the others.The first, second, third and sixth show-cause notices appearing at pages 80, 84, 88 and 102 of the petition, all relates to the alleged violation of Section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the first three notices the violation complained of is under Section 211 (3A) read with one or the other Accounting Standards that have now been formally made the yardstick for writing and examining the company accounts by a recent amendment to the Act. The sixth notice complaint of violation under Section 211(1) of the Act read with Schedule VI thereto. The ninth notice complains of the petitioners having violated Section 211(2) of the Act read with Part II of Schedule VI thereto. The eight and eleventh notices complains of violation of Section 217(1)(e) of ...
In Re: Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-2007
Reported in: (2008)1CompLJ407(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Of the 12 show-cause notices in respect of which the present proceedings have been instituted, four have been pressed with more vigour than the others, though the Registrar has made no concession in respect of the others.2. The first, second, third and sixth show-cause notices appearing at pages 80, 84, 88 and 102 of the petition, all relate to the alleged violation of Section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the first three notices the violation complained of is under Section 211(3A) read with one or the other Accounting Standards that have now been formally made the yardstick for writing and examining the company accounts by a recent amendment to the Act. The sixth notice complaint of violation under Section 211(1) of the Act reads with Schedule VI thereto. The ninth notice complains of the petitioners having violated Section 211(2) of the Act read with Part II of Schedule VI thereto. The eight and eleventh notices complains of violation of Section 217(1)(e) o...
Seiko Steel and Wires Industries and anr. Vs. West Bengal State Electr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN88
Nadira Patherya, J.1. This is an application challenging the notice of disconnection dated 13.12.2006 and the demand dated 16.12.2006.2. Petitioner's Case2.1. The case of the petitioner is that on 13.12.2006 at 4 a.m. a notice of disconnection was issued under Regulation 5.2 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Supply Code) Regulations, 2004. A copy of the said notice was handed over to the petitioner's representative and on the basis thereof a provisional order of assessment for Rs. 64,33,853/- was issued to the petitioner on 16.12.06. The said notice of disconnection and provisional order of assessment have been challenged in the instant writ petition and pursuant to order dated 9.1.07 the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the amount due. From the said order an appeal was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to make payment and pursuant to orders of the Appeal Court 50% of the amount provisionally assessed has been paid in instalments and conn...
Sraban Kumar Sur Vs. State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN487
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 5.3.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 1st Court, Howrah in M.P. Case No. 759/06 in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Cr. PC directing removal of all unlawful obstructions on the G.T. Road. The learned Executive Magistrate by the impugned order dated 5.3.07 directed the Executive Engineer, PWD, Howrah Division to take immediate action to remove all such unlawful obstructions from the G.T. Road. Thereafter the Assistant Engineer, PWD by Memo No. 266 dated 20.3.07 informed Bina Sur to remove all unlawful obstractions with encroachment of holding No. 286 of Mouja with JL No Belur-15 in respect of 510.00 sft. After receiving such memo of the Assistant Engineer, PWD, the petitioner moved this Court in this revisional application praying for setting aside the order of the learned Executive Magistrate on the ground of illegality.2. Mr. D.N. Batabyal, le...
Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. New Central Power and Process Pri ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN227
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. In these proceedings under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the petitioner challenges every bit of the award that is in favour of the contractor.2. The umpire has awarded Rs. 5 lakh by way of damages to the contractor; Rs. 50,000/- on account of costs in respect of the Court proceedings; Rs. 7 lakh on account of costs in the reference and interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from March 15, 1988 until payment.3. In end-August, 1983 the contractor was engaged for designing, manufacturing, supplying, erecting, testing and commissioning a Process Water Reclamation Plant at the Rourkella Steel Plant of the petitioner. The work was to be completed by December, 1984. The arbitrator has found that there was delay on the part of the employer or the engineers engaged by it that resulted in an unsuitable site being allotted. An alternative site was thereafter provided and on the petitioner's instructions found in a writing of March 22, 1984, the work...
Msst. Shamshad Begum and ors. Vs. Ganesh Chandra Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Cal65
ORDERIndira Banerjee, J.1. Pursuant to the order dated 18th June, 2007 service of the petitioner was effected on the opposite parties by Speed Post with Acknowledgment Due. The envelopes have been returned with the endorsement 'refused'. Refusal to accept service amounts to good service and the opposite parties are deemed to have been served.2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 28th February, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, 13th Bench of the Court of the City Civil Court, Calcutta dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 36 of 2005 from an Order No. 112 dated 26th August, 2005 or the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case No. 30 of 2004 whereby the Learned Chief Judge rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 9 for recalling of an ex parte order dated 3rd January, 2004 dismissing the earlier application of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte decre...
Bay Islands Hotel Ltd. Vs. Tahasildar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN718
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1 This mandamus appeal is at the instance of a private respondent in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order dated March 26, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court thereby disposing of the said writ application by setting aside the order dated October 04, 2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in FRA No. 11 of 2006 and directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to hear out the appeal afresh.2. Being dissatisfied, the respondent No. 4 of the writ application has come up with the present appeal.3. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has severely criticised the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that although in the writ application, the writ petitioner did not challenge the said order dated October 04, 2006, the learned Single Judge acted beyond the scope of the writ application in setting aside the said order.4. To appreciate the aforesaid q...
Anil Kumar Vs. a and N Administration and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN400
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. By this writ application, the writ petitioner, a dismissed employee, has challenged the order dated 20th May, 2005 issued by the employer by which it has in exercise of the power under Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has dismissed the writ petitioner form service of the Port Management Board w.e.f. 1st October, 2004.2. It appears from record that the writ petitioner was implicated in a criminal case alleging offence involving moral turpitude and ultimately, was acquitted of the charges by the learned Sessions Judge.3. Being dissatisfied, the prosecution preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court was pleased to allow such appeal thereby holding the writ petitioner guilty of the charges and inflicted rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonm...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »