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 and ors. Vs. Gobinda Sinha Mahapatra and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: 2008(4)CHN915
1. The respondent/writ petitioner No. 1 moved the learned Single Judge with a prayer for change of option from Contributory Provident Fund to General Provident Fund Scheme. The prayer was allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated March 12, 2003 appearing at pages 48-50 of the paper book.2. On perusal of the judgment it appears that no reason was assigned while allowing the writ petition. There was no provision for change of option being exercised belatedly. State from time to time granted liberty to the teachers to change their option within the stipulated period. The respondent/writ petitioner No. 1 did not avail such opportunity. Hence such prayer could not have been acceded to by His Lordship.3. The appeal thus succeeds.4. The order of the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside.5. We are told that the respondent/writ petitioner No. 1 has not yet been paid his retiral benefit although he retired in July, 2000.6. Mr. Oli Mohammad, learned Advocate, appeari...
In Re: Uniworth Resorts Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN712,[2008]143CompCas551(Cal),(2008)4CompLJ305(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The principal question of law that has been urged is as to whether on an application for amendment of the petition in proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board may permit all the amendments to be incorporated without assigning any reason therefor. The order impugned in the company's appeal and in the appeal by the seventh respondent before the Company Law Board needs to be set out in its entirety:Heard the parties on C. A. Nos. 131 and 132/07. Considering the contents of the amendment application and the legal submissions as well plethora of case laws relied upon by the parties as well as Regulation 46 of the CLB to consider real controversies between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, I allow the petitioner to amend CP No. 46/2006. Petitioner to file amended petition within a week's time. Respondents to file reply to the amended petition within four weeks thereafter. Adjourned to 8.10.2007 at 2.30 ...
Lt. Governor and ors. Vs. Prem Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT400(HC),2008(1)CHN91
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated May 22, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 78/ AN/2005, we are invited to decide whether the Chaudharis appointed under the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations, 1966, are holding civil posts or not?2. The Central Administration Tribunal, by its impugned judgment and order, answered the aforementioned question in the affirmative and directed the administration to consider in detail the functional responsibilities of Chaudharis, work out the total number of full time Chaudharis, to frame necessary recruitment rules and consider the cases of the applicants before the said Tribunal for their regulation in the posts of Chaudharis.3. The applicants before the Tribunal were, admittedly, appointed as part-time Chaudharis under the said Regulation of 1966 on consolidated pay.4. The applica...
Sri Ajay Prakash Lohia Vs. Sri Ashok Mittal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT1(HC)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The principal question of law that has been urged is as to whether on an application for amendment of the petition in proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company Law Board may permit all the amendments to be incorporated without assigning any reason therefor. The order impugned in the company's appeal and in the appeal by the seventh respondent before the Company-Law Board needs to be set out in its entirety:Heard the Parties on CA Nos. 131 & 132/07. Considering the contents of the amendment application and the legal submissions as well plethora of case laws relied upon by the parties as well as Regulation 46 of the CLB, to consider real controversies between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation I allow the petitioner to amend C.P. No. 46/2006. Petitioner to file amended petition within a week's time. Respondents to file reply to the amended petition within four weeks thereafter. Adjourned to 8.10.2007 at 2:30 pm a...
Lt. Governor and ors. Vs. M. Deepa and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN607,[2007(115)FLR835]
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated May 21, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (Circuit at Port Blair) in Original Application No. 26/AN/2007.2. The relevant facts leading to filing of this application before this Court are summarised as under:(a) There were seven vacancies in the post of 'Computer', which has been re-designated as Junior Investigator, in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, A & N Administration. The administration invited applications from the eligible candidates to fill up such vacancies. Such vacancy notice was published m the Daily Telegram dated September 30, 2005.(b) Pursuant to such vacancy notice, Ms. M. Deepa, the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, applied for her appointment in the said post of 'Computer'. By memorandum dated January 5,2006 she was directed to be present in the interview for selection i...
Dilip Kumar Mukherjee (D) by His Heeirs and L.R.S. (Smt.) Subhra Mukhe ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR940]
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. W.P. No. 18341 (W) of 2005 was taken out by the deceased workman for enforcing an order of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal dated May 20th, 2005: In the course of hearing thereof, W.P. No. 2315 of 2005 filed on the original side of this Court by the employer, partly questioning that order of the tribunal, has been assigned to me. Hence I have heard both the writ petitions together, and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Since the writ petition itself is being finally disposed of no separate order in CAN No. 5252 of 2007 is necessary, and hence it shall be deemed to be disposed of. The application for substitution taken out by the petitioners in W.P. No. 2315 of 2005. It is submitted that it is in form and within time, is hereby allowed and the department concerned of this Court is directed to amend the cause papers within a fortnight from the date records of the case are sent down from the Court.3. The workman was working in the W...
C.H. Ramakrishna Vs. State and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT406(HC),2008(1)CHN483
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is a criminal revisional application under Sections 397 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated May 29, 2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2006.2. Anil Kumar was a navik of Coast Guard. The police recovered a computer and a printer as also large number of forged ship tickets and rubber stamps from the residence of the said Anil Kumar. Similar incriminating materials were, also, recovered from the houses of Ramakrishna Rao, Foreman Electrician, Naval Ship Repair Yard, Gandhi Behara, leading Head Fireman, Naval Ship Repair Yard and V. Kasilingam, Cook of the ship Jarawa.3. Admittedly, Anil Kumar was a naval defence personnel, but all his accomplices were civilian employees.4. The police lodged the First Information Report on August 11,2000 against all the said accused persons under Sections 468/471/472/475/420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered as Crime No. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›