Kolkata Court September 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.
State of West Bengal Vs. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Cal6,2008(1)ARBLR340(Cal),(2008)1CALLT161(HC),2008(2)CHN68
1. We have heard the counsel for the appellant. The order passed by the Trial Court would show that the petition for setting aside the Award was not filed by the State within a period of 90 days as stipulated under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In fact, the petition was received in the Central Filing Section on 19th of June, 2007 when the period of 90 days expired on 14th of June, 2007. The petition was, however, filed within a period of one month after the expiry of 3 months time from the date of the Award dated 18-2-2007 corrected on 13-3-2007. Taking note of the aforesaid fact, the Trial Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application seeking condonation of delay for the period between the time when 90 days expired and the date when the application was filed in Court. It was also directed that liberty so granted would remain in effect if the petitioner chose to act in terms thereof within a period of two weeks from the date of the Order,...
Prasanta Kumar Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN402
Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Both writ petitions involves a common issue and, therefore, has been heard analogously and is disposed of by the judgment and order that follows.2. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 5154(W) of 2006 had applied for the purpose of being appointed as an Assistant Head Master of Kotalpur Madhusudan High School, P.O. Kundarali, District South 24-Parganas, on the basis of a notice dated 3rd January, 2005.3. The writ petitioner, was an Assistant Teacher in English in the same school, at the point of time he chose to apply for the post of Assistant Headmaster.4. According to the writ petitioner, three candidates, including the writ petitioner and the private respondent No. 5, were interviewed for the said post of Assistant Headmaster. Incidentally, the private respondent No. 5 was an Assistant Teacher in Physical Education and held a B.Ed, degree in Physical Education. On the other hand, the writ petitioner, it appears is holding a B.Ed. degree.5. In paragraph 6 of the w...
Ganapati Commerce Ltd. (In Liquidation) and the Official Liquidator, H ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: III(2008)BC36,(2008)1CALLT175(HC),[2008]83SCL467(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. A question of some significance as to the authority, and obligation, of the company Court arises in these matters. The official liquidator as custodian of the assets of the three companies in liquidation has applied for a common order passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Delhi to be set aside. The only contesting respondent in the three applications, a secured creditor at whose behest the company in each case was directed to be wound up, resists the prayers primarily on the ground of lack of the company Court's jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed by a recovery officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.2. There may be a few dates that may be different in the three matters taken up together and there may be some irrelevant details which may be at variance in the three cases, but the principal matter in issue is the same and such issue does not stand on or fall by the varying dates or min...
Assistant Director, Narcotic Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal Unit Vs. Md ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN1022
1. In this application the bail granted by the learned Judge (Special Court) in NDPS Case No. 30/06 by his order No. 5 dated 17.10.2006 has been sought to be cancelled.2. Shri Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India has placed the order before us and submitted that the offence against the accused was under Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act.3. According to Shri Mukherjee the punishment for violating the said provision was rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Accordingly, the statutory period was ninety days and not sixty days as have been found by the learned Judge (Special Court), Murshidabad.4. Shri Mukherjee for the Union of India has also submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner related to possession of 1.700 kgs. of opium and recovery of Rs. 27,000/- as the amount of sale proceeds. In such view of the matter the quantity recovered from the accused was above small quantity but below commercial quantity.5....
Kartick Chandra Bhandari Vs. Ashim Kumar Samanta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Cal279
ORDERIndira Banerjee, J.1. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, tenant has challenged an order dated 7th June, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 3rd Court. Howrah in Title Suit No. 24 of 2005, whereby the Court has rejected an application filed by the petitioner, being the defendant in the said suit, under Section 35 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, hereinafter referred to as the 1997 Act, for permission to repair the suit premises at the cost of the petitioner.2. The opposite party being the landlord initiated a suit for eviction of the petitioner being Title Suit No. 24 of 2005 in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Howrah.3. The petitioner made an application in the said suit under Section 35 of the 1997 Act for permission to the petitioner to carry out essential repairs at the suit premises. In the said application, it was alleged that the suit premises were in urgent need of repairs, which the O...
Biswamitra Pandey Vs. Chief Security Commissioner, Rpf, Eastern Railwa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN96
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. Both the appeals have been preferred from the common judgment and order dated 20th February, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the two writ petitions bearing W.P. No. 2433 (W) of 1998 and W.P. No. 2434 (W) of 1998. Scrutinising the said judgment and order under appeal we find that the learned Single Judge specifically mentioned the numbers of both the writ petitions at the heading of the judgment but actually proceeded only with the writ petition filed by Rakshak Biswamitra Pandey. Relevant portions from the said judgment and order under appeal are quoted hereunder:20.02.04. W.P. No. 2433(W) of 1998+W.P. No. 2434(W)/1998Mr. Tapas Saha for the...petitioner;Mr. Uttam Kumar Majumdar for...the respondent.The petitioner it appears was dismissed from service by an order dated 10.08.1982. It would be profitable to notice the order in its entirety:Rakshak Biswasmitra Pandey of RPF Post Gaya has been adopting indulging skillfully in organizi...
Maitrayee Ghosh Vs. Kolkata Port Trust and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN85,[2008(116)FLR432]
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the said writ petition.2. The appellant/writ petitioner is a Doctor and was appointed as Medical Officer of the Haldia Dock Complex Unit of the Kolkata Port Trust initially on temporary basis pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 23rd October, 1998. The said temporary appointment of the writ petitioner was subsequently confirmed by the office order dated 30th July, 2001 issued by the Manager, (P&IB;) being the respondent No. 6 herein.3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:The appellant took leave from 27th August, 2001 to 8th September, 2001 for accompanying her ailing-in-laws to C.M.C., Vellore. The said leave was duly sanctioned by the competent authority, namely, the Medical Superintendent. Thereafter by the letter dated 29th August, 2001, the said appellant informed the Dep...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-17-2007
Reported in: [2009(117)FLR947],(2008)IIILLJ241Cal
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The corporation, as petitioner, is questioning the order of the central government dated February 2, 2005 referring an existing industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata. The schedule to the order of reference reads as follows:Whether the seven casual workmen viz. S/Sri Ashrumoy Dutta, Gowtam Roy, Manoranjan Haider, Buddadeb Das, Suraj Das, Jayadev Pal and Kajal Das who are working at Aviation Fuel Station (of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division) at NSC Bose International Airport, Kolkata, continuously since March 17, 1992 entitled for regularization into the services of IOCL (MD) or not? In case they are entitled for regularization, from which date and in which pay-scale/grade they should be regularized? Whether the action of the management of IOC Ltd. (MD) in continuing these seven workmen on casual basis since March 17, 1992 is justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled?2. Admit...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Smritikana Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN582
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. These two appeals being FMA No. 94 of 2006 and MAT No. 428 of 2007 are taken up analogously for disposal as the same point of law is involved in these two appeals. FMA No. 94 of 2006 State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Smritikana Maity and Ors. is preferred against the judgment dated 4.10.2004 in W.P. No. 17266 (W) of 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge and in MAT No. 428 of 2007 State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Harendranath Mondal and Ors. the subject-matter of challenge is the judgment dated 22.12.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 20315 (W) of 2003. In both the cases, the learned Single Judge directed the District Inspector of Schools to regularize the services of the writ petitioners by approving their respective services as organizing staffs of Classes IX and X of the concerned schools.2. In both the appeals, this Court is required to decide the legality and/or validity of the claim for regularization of organizing staff of the upgraded ...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sankar Automobiles and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN598
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. Heard the learned advocate for the parties.2. Challenging the judgment and order dated 20th September, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W.P. No. 1393 of 2006, this appeal has been preferred. By the impugned judgment under appeal learned Trial Judge extended the life of the offer letter dated 12lh January, 2004 as was issued and thereby by a mandatory order directed grant of route permit in a route which is touching/originating from the prohibiting zone, central business district, Kolkata in view of the prohibitory notification dated 6th August, 2004. The logic as advanced to grant mandatory order by the learned Trial Judge is that since in the case of Sujata Ganguly v. State of West Bengal, being F.M.A. No. 604 of 2004 there was an injunction order restraining to grant any permit as passed on 25lh July, 2004 which subsequently after final hearing stood modified to this extent that the permit could be issued in respect of the routes irrespective of the fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »