Court : Kolkata
The Court : Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that she may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition to enable her client to prefer an appeal under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 against the impugned order and in the meantime the Court may continue with the statement made by the petitioner on 16th July, 2010, that is, the petitioner will not start the unit without permission of this Court, which was accepted as an undertaking and this Court further directs the parties to preserve status quo till the next date of hearing, which has been extended from time to time. We, therefore, permit the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file appeal under Section 31 of the said Act. It is made clear that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within two weeks from the date of passing of the order, till then the respondents would not take any action against the petitioner subject to the petitioner maintaining status q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
The Court: Two applicants have filed this application. Their alleged locus standi is disclosed in paragraph 13 of the affidavit. The prayer in the Judges Summons is as follows: Stay of C.P. No.384 of 2007 connected with C.A. No.785 of 2007 and all proceedings connected and/or connected therewith till disposal of the appeal and C.S. No.47 of 2008. I reproduce the order dated 18th August, 2010, I had passed when I was requested to adjourn the main matter: Prayer for adjournment is made by Mr. Chatterjee on the ground that his clients appeal and stay application are awaiting consideration before the Honble Appeal Court. However, till date there is no stay. This application is for enforcement of a Scheme of demerger. It appears that a family settlement on which such Scheme rests is under challenge in CS No.47 of 2008. A judgement and order dated 3rd August, 2010 was passed in an interim application in that suit where the family settlement has not been disturbed. An appeal from that order i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
The Court :- This application is admitted by condoning delay, as in my opinion sufficient cause has been shown. It appears that claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 were awarded in their entirety to the respondent on the basis of admission made by the railways. Such portion of the award has not even been challenged in this application. Therefore, I give liberty to the award-holder/respondent to proceed with execution in respect of the above portion of the award, if the railways do not pay the said awarded sum, (without interest) within one month from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner may proceed with the application, subject to the above condition. List this application after the long vacation. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
The Court : The order dated 21st April, 2010, is mentioned. By that order the application was disposed of by appointing an Arbitrator at a consolidated remuneration of Rs.50,000/-. The time to make and publish the Award was four months from the date of service of the order. That order is mentioned for the purpose of its proper implementation. The time to make and publish the Award is expiring but the reference has not been completed. It is true that there is no time prescribed by the Act to make and publish the Award. But it is equally true that when it is made known to the parties by an order of the Court that the arbitral reference has to be completed within four months, due weight has to be given to that mandate. I appreciate the submission made by the parties jointly that the issues have become very contentious and the records are voluminous. That is why, it was not possible to complete the reference within four months. For those reasons, although the parties consent that the time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
The Court: This application appeared in the list on 28th of July, 2010. Learned Counsel for the Central Government sought adjournment to file an affidavit. Today it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no copy of the affidavit has been served upon her. None appears for the Central Government. It is presumed that they have no objection to sanction of the scheme. Accordingly, I allow this application by passing orders in terms of prayers (a) to (j) of the petition. In the event the petitioners supply a legible computerized print out of the scheme and the schedule of assets in acceptable form to the department, the department will append such computerized print out, upon verification, to the certified copy of the order without insisting on a handwritten copy thereof. The petitioner is to pay a consolidated cost of 200 GMs. to the Central Government. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
In this writ application the petitioner has inter alia challenged an order, bearing memo. no.174/L&L;/DR dated 5th August, 2010, issued by the Director of Rationing, West Bengal, suspending temporarily the license of the petitioner, the owner of a Fair Price Shop in the Dum Dum area in exercise of power under paragraph 26 of the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order, 2003. The grounds on which the order of suspension has been issued, have been enumerated in the impugned order. Some of the grounds and in particular, the seventh ground of major discrepancies in stock as entered in the stock register and the stock displayed on the stock board, are undoubtedly serious charges. The charges have, however, been denied. The Director of Rationing was required under paragraph 26 of the 2003 Order to form the opinion that immediate suspension of the Fair Price Shop was in the interest of the general public. The relevant part of the order of suspension impugned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
The Court : The petitioner applied for permit on route No.71. The application was considered and a letter being Memo No.RTA/236(Con) dated 28.7.2010 was issued to the petitioner offering the petitioner permit subject to compliance with the requisite conditions. In terms of the aforesaid offer letter, the petitioner was required to acquire a vehicle which was either Bharat Stage-III or Bharat Stage-IV. Obtaining finance from HDFC Bank, the petitioner has purchased a Bharat Stage-III vehicle. The vehicle has been registered temporarily. However, the vehicle has not been granted permanent registration on the ground that the vehicle is not Bharat Stage-IV Compliant. The action of the respondent authorities in not registering the vehicle permanently on the ground of the vehicle not being a Bharat Stage-IV vehicle is legally unsustainable. As per the letter of offer the petitioner was required to procure a vehicle which was either Bharat Stage-III or Bharat Stage-IV Compliant. If the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
The Court :- In this writ application the petitioner, an existing operator has sought orders restraining the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, or the Regional Transport Authority, 24 Parganas from issuing permits in the route from Barasat to Dakshin Barasat via Jessore Road; E.M. Bye Pass, Garia, Sonarpur and Baruipur to any private operators. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that there is a Notification No. 1010-WT/3M-154/2004 dated 11.02.2005 whereby a scheme has been formulated under Chapter-VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in favour of the State Transport Undertakings as specified in the said notification namely Calcutta State Transport Corporation, the South Bengal State Transport Corporation, the North Bengal State Transport Corporation, the West Bengal Surface Transport Corporation Ltd., and the Calcutta Tramways Company Ltd. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid notification no permit can be granted on the routes co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
The Court :-In this writ petition, the prayer in substance of the petitioner is to permit her to demolish a portion of premises No.16-B, Jaykrishna Pal Road, Kolkata-700023 and carry out repair work in other parts of the premises. However, part of the premises is in occupation of the two occupants, who are also impleaded as Respondent Nos.11 and 12 in this writ petition. In my view, any direction upon the Corporation cannot be issued by the Writ Court which would in reality result in demolition of part of the building, which is in occupation of any other occupants. To do so, an appropriate direction of the Civil Court would be necessary. Mr.Deb Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the portion of the premises which his client seeks to demolish is not in occupation of any other occupant. No one appears on behalf of the Private Respondents when the matter is called on for hearing. Urgency has been pleaded by Mr.Deb Roy, learned Counsel on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
The Court : Learned advocate for the petitioner prayed for liberty to file a supplementary affidavit. Such leave is granted. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation is represented but the private respondents are not represented. The affidavit of service filed by the petitioner does not contain any A/D card. Considering that the petitioner prayed for liberty to file supplementary affidavit and such liberty has been granted, the petitioner is directed to serve the private respondents once again. A copy of the supplementary affidavit shall be served on each of the respondents. The private respondents shall be served with a copy of the petition in addition to the copy of the supplementary affidavit. Such service shall be effected upon the private respondents under registered cover with A/D. Let the matter be listed after three weeks.It will be open to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to file the opposition to the supplementary affidavit within the aforesaid date. ...
Tag this Judgment!