Kolkata Court January 2008 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.
Sri Uttam Kayal Vs. Sri Sunil Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT354(HC),2008(2)CHN966
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being order No. 12 dated 12th February, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Serampore in the District of Hooghly in Title Suit No. 2223 of 2005 whereby the defendant's prayer for permitting him to deposit all arrear rents at a time before the Court was rejected by the learned Trial Judge on contest.2. The propriety of such an order is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of defendant/petitioner herein.3. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner's such prayer in the facts and circumstances of the case.4. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner herein for evicting the defendant from the suit property by determination of relationship of landlord and tenant by service of notice under Section ...
C.E.S.C. Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT443(HC),2008(3)CHN329,[2008(118)FLR253]
Aniruddha Bose, J.1. In the present writ petition, under challenge in substance is the legality of a proceeding initiated under the provisions of Section 10(1B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended in West Bengal). I shall describe this statute in the later part of this Judgment as 'The Act'. The petitioners, who are a company and a licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003 have approached this Court mainly for quashing of a certificate issued in Form-S as per Rule 12A(3) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, and a notice issued by the learned Judge, Second Labour Court, requiring the appearance of the petitioners before the Court for framing of issues. I shall henceforth refer to these Rules as the said Rules. The certificate in form S stipulates pendency of a conciliation proceeding for more than sixty days. The notice of the Labour Court requires appearance of the petitioners for hearing regarding framing of issues in connection with a dispute between the pe...
West Bengal Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Nicon Elec ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal71
ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. Five of the six guarantors sued by the petitioner State Financial Corporation have applied for recalling orders passed in the proceedings. The ostensible ground in the application is the lack of authority of this Court to receive the petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The ground urged at the final hearing of the application is for dismissal of the petition on the count of limitation. The point of limitation is canvassed on the strength of a line found in the application that the proceedings are not maintainable. The State Financial Corporation has been afforded time to answer the point of limitation and the matter has been heard with the State Financial Corporation resisting the ground of limitation without insisting on the technical objection that such matter would not fall within the ambit of this application.2. The principal ground originally put forth has been abandoned by the applicants. The applicants do not a...
Sri Rameswar Roy Vs. Smt. Moly Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT128(HC)
Biswanath Samadder, J.1. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order, being Order No. 153 dated 11th January, 2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Siliguri in Title Suit. No. 108 of 2000, rejecting the application of the defendant, being the petitioner herein praying for adjournment.The impugned order reads as follows:Today is fixed for evidence of rest of DWs.Learned Advocate of both sides are present.No witness is present on behalf of the defendant.At this stage an application has been filed on behalf of the defendant with the submission that the defendant filed Revisional application before Hon'ble High Court and till hearing of the said application the defendant is not in a position to adduce any further DWs. A letter of learned Advocate also has been annexed with this application. But from this application and also from the letter of learne...
Tapan Kumar Barman Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: 2009(1)CHN23
1. This application, in spite of notice, is unopposed either by filing affidavit-in-opposition, though direction was given at one point of time and also by appearance, though repeated notices were served and such last notice was served on 10th January, 2008 pursuant to our earlier direction dated 10th January, 2008. Affidavit of service is kept on record. Hence, we have no option but to proceed with the hearing in absence of the State.2. This application has impugned the order of the learned Tribunal dated 21st September, 2004 whereby and whereunder the application filed before the learned Tribunal for obtaining relief for compassionate appointment, was rejected. Short fact, for which the application before the learned Tribunal was filed is as follows:3. The applicant is the son of one Late Birendra Nath Barman. He has sufficient educational qualification and he belongs to the scheduled caste community. His father died in harness on 16th December, 1999. Consequent upon his death, under...
Sri Khokan Bhunia Vs. Smt. Dipali Bhunia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT273(HC),II(2008)DMC30
Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No. 11 dated 31.10.2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Tamluk in criminal revision No. 54 of 2004/ 422 of 2004 affirming thereby the order dated 01.06.2004 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Haldia in Misc. Execution case No. 3 of 2004.2. The case, of the petitioner herein, in short, is that he was the opposite party in the case under Section 125 Cr.PC filed against him by the O.P. No. 1 herein. The learned Magistrate allowed the Misc. Case directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs. 800/- per month as maintenance to the O.P. No. 1 herein with effect from 28.03.1996. The petitioner herein preferred a revisional application bearing No. 273 of 1998 which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore. The petitioner herein thereafter preferred a revisional application before the Hon'ble H...
Banibrata Das Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT299(HC),2008(3)CHN1016
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The appellant, Banibrata Das in both the appeals is an employee of Indian Oil Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'IOC'). He is the son of one Late Gobinda Das, son of Late Kangali Das, who was a driver working in the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'CSTC'). When Gobinda Das entered in service in CSTC he declared himself belonging to 'Kayastha' caste. Accordingly his service book was recorded as such. He was all through out treated by the CSTC as a general category employee. He never obtained any benefit claiming to be schedule caste until the time hereinafter discussed. He retired from service on June 30, 1985. He died in 2000.2. Gobinda had three sons and one daughter. Appellant Banibrata was one of the sons. It is an admitted fact that they pursued their studies in accordance to their status as general candidate and did not avail any benefit claiming to be schedule caste at any point of time. He joined IOC on 21st Augus...
Nripati Nath Mitra and ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT491(HC)
Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgement and decree passed in Ejectment Suit No. 297 of 1981 of the 11th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta for eviction of the defendant appellants from the suit property.2. The plaintiffs'/respondents' case in the Court below was that they were the owners of the two storied building on 20, College Row, Calcutta. The plaintiffs/respondents got such property by a Will executed on 5.5.40 by Brojobala Dasi, the maternal grand-father bequeathing said premises to them and granting life interest in the said premises to her daughter Malina Bala Dasi, since deceased, the mother of the plaintiffs. Amulya Chandra Guin, the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs was the executor to the said Will. The Will was probated through Court of competent jurisdiction and the defendants appellants and proforma respondent No. 4 attorned their tenancy to the plaintiffs and they began to pay the rent to the plaintiffs @ Rs. 262/- per month.3....
Jenson Nicholson (i) Ltd. Vs. Controlling Authority Under the Payment ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT350(HC),2008(2)CHN954
Aniruddha Bose, J.1. The petitioners, an existing company within the meaning of Companies Act 1956 in this petition challenge three notices issued under the provisions of Section 7 of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913 requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why the certificates should not be executed within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance thereof. Also under challenge in this writ petition are three notices issued by the Certificate Officer, copies of which have been annexed and collectively marked 'p11' to the writ petition requiring the petitioners to pay certificate demand including interest and cost. The petitioners have also applied for stay of all further proceeding in connection with the three certificate cases initiated against them. All the notices issued under Section 7 of the 1913 Act are dated 14th December 2005, and have been issued in pursuance of requisition made by the Controlling Authority (respondent No. 1 herein) under the Payment of Gra...
Jayanta Kumar Mitra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)(98)SLJ362CAT
1. The dispute brought for adjudication in this O.A. is how the applicant, a Member of Indian Railway Traffic Service, 1974 Batch was not promoted from the level of Senior Administrative Grade to Higher Administrative Grade in the selection for the year 2006 although he had no adverse entry in the confidential records throughout his career. The applicant got his promotion upto the level of the SAG without any hindrance. He got his promotion in the SAG in 1994. He was considered for promotion to the next higher level i.e. Rs. 22,400/24,500/- in the year 2006 along with other officers within the zone of consideration.However, he was not promoted although some of his juniors in service got promotion to the HAG superceding him. The applicant says that such supercession was unfair and illegal as no adverse entry was ever communicated to him by the respondents at any stage of his working career.2. The applicant further says that in July, 2006 it was stated by one of the senior officers in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »