Kolkata Court October 2012 Judgments
Smt. Lopamudra Dutta Chowdhury and Another Vs. Abhijit Dutta Chowdhury ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. These two applications are directed against the Order No.50 dated December 23, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.3 of 2009 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.16 of 2009 thereby granting alimony in favour of the wife and her daughter. Since, both the applications have arisen out of the same order of alimony, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the C.O. No.615 of 2012 is taken up first. C.O. No.615 of 2012:- This application has been preferred by the wife claiming alimony to the tune of Rs.36,940/- only per month for herself and her daughter and a sum of Rs.30,000/- only as litigation costs against her husband. The petitioner has contended that the parties were married on August 4, 1987 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and after the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife. One daughter was born in the wedlock and the said daughter is now 10 years of age and is a school g...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Macneill Engineering Limited Vs. the West Bengal State Electricity ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Girish Chandra Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against an order dated 4th May, 2012 passed by the Learned Trial Court refusing to pass any interim order as regards restoration of supply of electricity. Aggrieved by the order of refusal the petitioners have come up in appeal. The case of the writ petitioners briefly stated is as follows: The writ petitioner No.1 is a sick company and is engaged, inter alia, in manufacturing of forklift vehicle material, material handling equipment and such other business. They have 300 workers. Part of the factory premises is let out for shooting of TV serials etc. The consumption of electricity in the preceding 12 months from the date of incident was for an aggregate sum of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately. On 18th April, 2012 a surprise inspection was conducted at the factory of the petitioner No.1. During such inspection the petitioner No.1 was allegedly found to have been engaged in unauthorized use of electricity. Supply was disconnected at about 16.2...
Tag this Judgment!C.E.S.C. Limited Vs. Abdos Trading Co. Pvt. Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-19-2012
Girish Chandra Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 19th June, 2008 passed by brother Dipankar Dutta J holding that the assessment under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 suffered from procedural ultra vires and was accordingly quashed. The C. E. S. C. Ltd., was directed to restore supply of electricity within 48 hours without demanding any charges. Mr. Mitra, Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the only issue which he is likely to press is a question of law as to “whether presence of the Assessing Officer at the time of inspection under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 is mandatory?” In the case of Hasi Mazumdar and Anr. –vs.- The West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in AIR 2006 Calcutta – 59, he submitted, that one of us held that the presence of the Assessing Officer at the time of inspection was mandatory without disclosing any reasons. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Raju and Another Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The Appeal, being C.R.A. 292 of 2010, has been preferred by Md. Raju and the Appeal, being C.R.A. 490 of 2010, has been preferred by Md. Salim alias Israil. Both of them together with others were found guilty of the offences under Sections 398 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. C/424/2005. By the judgment dated 28.04.2012, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Howrah, recorded their conviction and sentence. Md. Raju was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentence to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Md. Salim alias Israil was similarly sentenced for the same offences. Since they challenged the same judgment whereby they were convicted, this Court propose...
Tag this Judgment!In Re - Shibani Ruj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
1. This appeal arose out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.8.99 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in special court case No. 2/97 convicting thereby the appellant under Section 409 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10000/- in default R.I. for one year. 2. In the background of this appeal the fact in a nutshell is that one Shibani Ruj was posted as a clerk in the Pension Section of Treasury Office at Kandi, Murshidabad. She was entrusted with the job of preparing pension bills of the pension holders. As per the Treasury Rules the appellant prepared the bills and after preparing the bills the same were forwarded by her before the Clerk-in-charge and thereafter the same were checked and forwarded to the Accountant who after scrutiny forwarded the same to the Additional Treasury Officer and lastly after final scrutiny, cheques were prepared and signed by the Treasury O...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Imeco Limited Vs. M/S. Beml Ltd. and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
This writ application is filed by the petitioner company for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to release the payment of invoice raised by the petitioner for a total sum of Rs.4,81,54,608. The aforesaid amount was claimed by the petitioner company for execution of work orders and or contracts awarded to it by the respondent no.2 entering into sub-contracts with the petitioner company for manufacturing and supply of additional Berth (Middle Berth) for fitment of the same on longitudinal side of existing AC 3- Tier Railway Coaches and Sleeper Class Rail Coaches running within the jurisdiction of Southern Railway. The petitioner was a company within the meaning of companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at “IMECO House”, Budge Trunk Road, Dakghar, Maheshtala, Kolkata-700141 with its workshop situated at Kharagpur. The respondent no.1 was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 as a public sector undertaking for manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Lokesh Nag Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Harish Tandon, J. A short but very interesting point is involved in this writ petition relating to the competence and jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of reduction of pay as well as the stoppage of increment passed by the original authority situate outside the jurisdiction of the High court. Against the alleged misconduct committed outside the territorial jurisdiction and the order of the appellate authority which is also situated outside the jurisdiction of this court but the revisioning authority confirming and/or affirming the aforesaid order is situated within the jurisdiction of this court, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. The matter relates to a disciplinary proceeding initiated under the Central Industrial Security Force Act 1968 by the competent authority against the enrolled members of the force for alleged misconduct committed by the said delinquent while posted as port commander in DGDB Rig a...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. Vijaya Bank and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
This writ application is directed against an order of termination of the service of the petitioner passed by the respondent no.2 under his memo No. PER:IRD:4050:2005 dated November 5, 2005. The back drop of this case in a nutshell is as under:- The petitioner participated in a selection process for appointment of Assistant General, Managers Net Working under the respondent Bank on the basis of his application dated May 3, 2003. By a communication issued under memo No.PER:HRD:RCT:6691:2003 dated December 17, 2003 the petitioner was informed by the respondent no.3 that he had been selected for appointment to the post of Assistant General Manager, Net working in SMG Scale–V with the conditions that he would be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining the respondent bank and he would be considered for conformation in service subject to his satisfactory performance, conduct and satisfactory report from the police authorities about his character and antecedent and...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mayurakshi Basu (Nee Maitra) and Another Vs. Sandeep Basu and Ano ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. These two applications are directed against the Order No.27 dated March 19, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.8 of 2011 arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.13 of 2011. Since, the common fact is involved in the matter, these two applications are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the C.O. No.1314 of 2012 is discussed first. C.O. No.1314 of 2012:- The wife has instituted this application praying for enhancement of the alimony granted pendente lite in the said suit. In the said matrimonial suit, the husband prayed for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights between the parties at a residence other than the present residence of the respondent and other consequential reliefs. The wife is contesting the said suit and she filed an application under Section 36 read with Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and that application was disposed of on contest directing the husband to pay an ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sandip Santra and Others Vs. Dr. Papiya Biswas and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-18-2012
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. We are concerned with about sixteen (16) writ petitions challenging the provisions of Clause 9(2)(d) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, (‘the said regulation’ in short) and the consequential Government of West Bengal notification dated November 23, 2011, (‘the said notification’ in short). In Writ Petition No. 1000(w) of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 5125(w) of 2012, the said Clause 9(2)(d) is, specifically, under challenge. However, in the other fourteen (14) writ petitions, the said government notification is under challenge. The Hon’ble Single Judge, by the order impugned, inter alia, held that there was no illegality on part of the Medical Council of India in amending the said regulation of 2000 by inserting Clause 9(2)(d) in the said regulation and, further, held that the said notification of the Government of West Bengal only identified the rural and difficult areas, which was within the domain of the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »