Kolkata Court July 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.
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sk. Nazrul Islam and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR1183]
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Prasenjit Mandal, JJ.1. State Government above has impugned the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 22nd March 2000 by which the respondents No. 1 to 6 have been given relief, as prayed for in their application filed before it.2. In substance, the above respondents got relief of pay protection as available by virtue of Rule 55(4) of the West Bengal Service Rules. Learned Tribunal found that pre-conditions for granting pay protection, as provided in the aforesaid Rules, were fulfilled while hearing factually found, promotion being granted to the respondent No. 9 and the date of promotion of the respondents No. 1 to 6. Factually respondents No. 1 to 6 are direct recruit to the post of Deputy Jailor and they joined sometimes in 1984-85 whereas the respondent No. 9 joined State Service as a clerk and then he was gradually promoted to the post of Deputy Jailor. However, such promotion was made only on the strength of the judgment and order passed by a ...
Sri Kartick Mondal and ors. Vs. Sri Biman Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)3CALLT199(HC),2008(4)CHN197
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 8 dated 22nd April, 2008 whereby the learned Trial Judge rejected the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The propriety of such an order is under challenge in this application at the instance of the defendants/petitioners herein.3. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the defendants' said application in the facts of the instant case.4. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, a decree for injunction was sought for against the defendants for restraining them from changing the nature and character of the suit property. A decree for permanent injunction has also been sought for against the defendants, for restraining them from transferring and/or alienating the suit property in fa...
Padmavati Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusum Agarwal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)3CALLT312(HC)
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. In this application the petitioner/applicant has sought for review of the order passed by this Court on 30th January, 2008 in CO. No. 3291 of 2007.2. For proper appraisal of this application for review, short background of this case is required to be taken note of. Accordingly, the background of this case, in brief, is given hereunder.3. The opposite party No. 1, as plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of contract against one Ranendra Kishore Mazumdar, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/opposite parties, for enforcement of the agreement for sale dated 20th May, 1983 wherein the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 agreed to purchase 55 Kothas of property with structure free from all encumbrances at a sum of Rs. 5,51,000/- from the said Ranendra Kishore Mazumdar. Several other incidental reliefs including mandatory injunction were prayed for in the said suit.During the pendency of the said suit the original defendant died and upon his death ...
Smt. Sujata Dasgupta Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT65(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition dated July 22, 2004 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to approve her appointment to the post of head teacher in Biplabi Kshudiram Pally G.S.F.P. School, Kolkata - 700 054.2. Her case is this. On March 5, 1998 her appointment as assistant teacher in the school was approved by the competent authority. On April 30, 2004 Purnima Lahiri, the head teacher of the school, retired. By a resolution dated April 15, 2004 the managing committee of the school had decided that after Purnima's retirement she would work as the teacher-in-charge. Accordingly, with effect from May 1, 2004 she started working as the teacher-in-charge of the school. Though she possessed the qualifications M.A., B.Ed., more than the requisite qualifications, and hence was entitled to be considered for the post of head teacher, the primary school council did not consider her case. Having worked as teacher-in-charge in the school and possessed qual...
Sri Ajoy Kumar Maiti Vs. Dr. Anil Kumar Maiti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT315(HC)
Biswanath Somadder, 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. 13 dated 15th September, 2007 passed by the learned District Delegate, Paschim Midnapore in Probate Case No. 156 of 2006.3. By the order impugned, the learned Court below was pleased to recall an earlier order, being Order No. 6 dated 28th February, 2007, whereby an application under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was allowed, appointing the petitioner/executor as administrator pendente lite.4. In the instant application, the petitioner herein is the petitioner/executor who had approached the learned Court below for appointing him as administrator pendente lite. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the applicants before the learned Court below at whose instance the order dated 28th February, 2007, stood recalled by the impugned order passed by the learned Court b...
Jaideep Halwasiya Vs. Rasoi Ltd. and ors. (No. 1)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2008
Reported in: [2009]150CompCas1(Cal)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiff holds more than seven per cent. of the undisputed paid-up capital of the first defendant-company and has instituted the suit, with leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for himself and 'on behalf of and for the benefit of all shareholders' of the first defendant-company except the defendant shareholders.2. Though in the plaint the plaintiff cites several other transactions in support of his contention that the persons in control of the company are wrongdoers and have been conducting the business of the company for their personal benefit and to the company's detriment, the only challenge in these interlocutory applications is as to an item of business transacted at the annual general meeting of the company held on September 25 and 26, 2006. G. A. No. 3253 of 2006 is the first application in point of time and the orders sought are in aid of the primary reliefs in the suit. G. A. No. 3509 of 2006 is the second application for subst...
Calcutta Dock Labour Board Vs. Eic Holdings Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-2008
Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT159(HC)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. At all material times Calcutta Dock Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as 'CDLB') was a tenant in respect of premises No. 20B, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta (formerly known as British Indian Street). From time to time six tenancies were created being flat No. ID, 1 G and 11 in the first floor, 2A in the 2nd floor 3A in the 3rd floor and 5A on the 5th floor. Altogether the CDLB was enjoying 25154.36. sq. ft. area of the premises in question. They were paying rent @1.23 per sq. ft. inclusive of service charges. The Landlord being the respondent abovenamed enhanced the rent to Rs. 8.52 per sq. ft. and started raising demand therefore. CDLB refused to pay at the enhanced rate. Disputes arose between the parties. The Landlord approached the Rent Controller for fixing fair rent. In the meantime the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act of 1997') came into force. Under the said Act of 1997 the tenancy attracting monthly re...
Shri Chinmoy Pathak Vs. Standard Chartered Bank Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-2008
Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT217(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The defendant in the suit has taken out this application seeking an order rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.2. The plaintiffs case in the plaint is this. He is the general secretary of ANZ Grindlays Bank Retired Management Staff Pensioners' Association. He and the members of his association are former members of the management staff of ANZ Grindlays Bank that merged into the defendant on or about September 1st, 2002. In terms of Grindlays Bank Limited Indian Staff Pension Scheme Rules, made for implementation and operation of the Grindlays Bank Limited Indian Staff Pension Scheme Trust Deed dated December 27th, 1974, the members of the association are entitled to get pension; and on retirement from service they are getting it. Before its merger ANZ Grindlays Bank increased the rate of pension from time to time. But the defendant wrongfully failed and neglected to increase the rate of pension. Though the pension s...
Subhankar Mukherjee Vs. Rakhi Mukherjee Nee Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-2008
Reported in: AIR2009Cal5
ORDERBiswanath Somadder, 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. 13 dated 10th January, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Burdwan in Miscellaneous Case No. 20 of 2007.3. The petitioner herein was the respondent in the said miscellaneous case which was filed by his wife claiming alimony pendente lite under provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.4. By the order impugned, the learned Court below was pleased to allow the wife's application and directed as follows:that the instant Misc. Case arising out of the application under Section 24/26 of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed on contest without any order as to cost with direction upon the O.P. Subhankar Mukherjee to pay Rs. 14,000/- per month to the petitioner Rakhi Mukherjee Nee Banerjee of which Rs. 8,000/- for the petitioner herself and Rs. 6,000/...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›