Kolkata Court August 2012 Judgments
Smt. Nandini Sinha and Others Vs. Anadi Kumar Majee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the Order No.17 dated May 18, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, 5th Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.56 of 2006-E thereby disposing of an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No.56 of 2006-E against the defendants for ejectment and other reliefs, inter alia, on the ground of default in respect of the premises in suit. The defendants are contesting the said suit denying the material allegations raised in the plaint and it is their specific contention that the plaintiff / opposite party herein is not their landlord. They have also contended that they are not defaulters as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, they filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. Both the parties have adduced evidence i...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Usha Ranjan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-2012
Soumen Sen, J. The instant appeal is arising out of an order passed on 3rd June, 1993 in Award Case No.125 of 1991. The learned single Judge appears to have dismissed the said application on the ground that the challenge as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to pass an award in terms of the award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the “1940 Act”) is unsustainable. The real difficulties being faced in hearing the appeal are the absence of relevant documents and record since it appears that the appellant was extremely negligent, lackadaisical and lethargic in pursuing the said appeal. The said appeal was preferred in 1993 and thereafter the appellant did not take any steps for hearing of the appeal. However, from the memorandum of appeal it appears that ground (i) to (v) are devoted to the jurisdiction of the learned single Judge in receiving the award and passing judgment upon the award. The ground (vi) and ground (vii) relate to the jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Pradyut Kumar Kailthya Vs. Mirzapur Gram Hindu Janasadharan and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Asim Kumar Mondal, J. The matter is taken for passing order. The Learned Advocate for the applicant/petitioner appeared. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Opposite Party on repeated calls on three consecutive dates. It appears further that the notice has duly served by speed post upon the Opposite Party. Under the circumstances, heard learned Advocates for the petitioner. This revisional application is directed against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Jangipur, Mursidabad passed in Misc. Case No. 4/2007 being Order No. 42 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to allow the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, in favour of respondent/Opposite Party condoning the delay of about two years in presenting the petition for setting aside the ex-parte order under Rule 9 Order 13 C.P.C. The case of the petitioner in short is that petitioner filed a suit as plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction over a land at Mouz...
Tag this Judgment!islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines Vs. Mnb Steel Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-2012
Patherya, J. The decree-holder has filed E.C. 70 of 2008 for execution of award dated 14th August, 2007 while E.C. 166 of 2008 has been filed for execution of Award dated 14th August, 2007 as corrected on 5th August, 2008. Although the Award was passed on 14th August, 2007 reasons in respect thereof was given subsequently. The case of the decree-holder is that the charter party agreement of 12th January, 2005 contained an arbitration clause. As disputes arose between the parties, an arbitrator was appointed who after giving notice to the parties proceeded to decide the issues and passed an Award on 14th August, 2007. As the said Award was not challenged, after the limitation period of 120 days the same was put into execution. An affidavit was filed by the judgment debtors wherein the existence of the charter party dated 12th January, 2005 was disputed. As the said was a typographical error steps were taken by the decreeholder to correct the said typographical error and steps have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Kartick Ruidas and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Harish Tandon, J. The petitioners have ventilated the common cause in this writ petition. Admittedly, all the petitioners are the registrants of the concerned Employment Exchanges and their names were sponsored to the District Primary School Council, Burdwan for the post of the primary teacher in a primary school within the said District in the year 1999. Undisputedly, the recruitment process was conducted on the basis of the rules regulating the recruitment and leave of the teachers in primary school in West Bengal framed vide a notification no. 768-Edn (p) dated 22 November, 1991 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 106 and 60 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973. In terms of the provision contained in Rule 9 thereof, all the sponsored candidates were allowed to produce the testimonial/certificates for the computation of their marks in the score sheet prepared for such purposes. The petitioners are, thereafter, selected for the interview and were empanelled for ...
Tag this Judgment!Slipco Constructions Private Limited Vs. Shapporji Pallonji and Compan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The primary objection of the respondent to the present request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. The lesser challenge is that the invocation of the alleged arbitration agreement is premature since no attempt was made at reconciling the disputes. The arbitration clause that the petitioner relies on is contained in an agreement of August 25, 2009. The clause provides as follows: “8. Resolution of disputes: Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be settled by mutual discussions between the Managing Directors of the Companies whose decision shall be accepted by the Parties. If the dispute is not resolved by mutual discussion then the Agreement will be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1996.” The substance of the respondent’s submission is that the clause does not speak of any arbitration or of the finality of any decision in an arbitral reference. The...
Tag this Judgment!Hirak Kumar Banerjee Vs. Bangiya GramIn Vikash Bank and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Harish Tandon, J. The petitioner has prayed for an order granting promotion to him from the post of Junior Management Grade (JMG) Scale-I to Middle Management Grade (MMG) Scale-II on the basis of a seniority-cum-merit in terms of the judgment and order passed in W.P. No. 7823 (w) of 1998. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as JMG Scale-I Officer in Sagar Gramin Bank on October 15, 1982. The said Bank was established under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. By virtue of a notification dated February 21, 2007, all other Rural Bank including the Bank where the petitioner is appointed were amalgamated and were renamed as Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank the respondent no. 1 herein. Pursuant to Section 17 read with Section 29 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, the Central Government framed the Regional Rural Bank (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1988. Prior to amalgamation of the erstwhile bank with the respondent no. 1, a circular dated March 31, 1998 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Subhrangshu Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
Harish Tandon, J. This case has a chequered history. The parties have moved several round of litigation before this court. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1988 after accorded the approval by the District Inspector of School. Because of the vacancy of the post of Head Teacher, the petitioner was entrusted to work as teacher-in-charge upon granting the necessary approval in the year 1988 itself. Till the year 1991, the Managing Committee appointed one Atul Chandra Roy as Headmaster of the said school. The said Headmaster worked till the year 1997 and thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed as teacher-incharge. The petitioner was allowed to function in such capacity with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. Subsequently by circular dated March 5, 2001, the State declared that the school which is upgraded to High School from a Junior High, the Headmaster working therein should be appro...
Tag this Judgment!Harsh Vardhan Lodha and Others Vs. Devendra Kumar Mantri and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
J.N. Patel, C.J. These are appeals arising out of the common judgment and order delivered on 27th August, 2010 on two applications GA 3714 of 2008 and GA 3718 of 2008 filed in connection with PLA No. 242 of 2004 whereby those were disposed of by putting the estate for the time being in the custody of three independent persons who would act as Joint Administrators pendente lite in and over all the estates left by the deceased. The relevant portion of the said judgment is noted below:- “…….They will make inventory of the estate and take possession of the same except the properties which are under possession of the Joint Special Officer for the time being. They shall submit report of inventory within four weeks from the date of assumption of charges. They will take custody of all original share scripts of all the companies and other valuable documents viz. Boards, fixed deposits’ receipts etc. which belonged to and held by the said deceased, shall operate the bank ...
Tag this Judgment!L and T Finance Ltd. Vs. Arss Infrastructure Projects Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AP No.582 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.583 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.584 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.585 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.586 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.588 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.589 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.590 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.591 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.592 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.595 of 2012 L & T FINANCE LTD.-VersusARs.INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LTD.& ANR. AP No.596 of 2012...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »