Kolkata Court September 2012 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.
Samulam Kerketta and Others Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The 40 petitioners in this WPCT under art.226 dated August 27, 2012 are aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (Circuit at Port Blair) dated December 13, 2011 dismissing their OA No.179/AN/2010. The case stated in the OA precisely is this. The petitioners were appointed in the Forest Department of the Andaman Administration as daily rated mazdoor between 1992 and 1996. Having worked continuously for 240 days, they acquired a right to absorption in permanent employment; for the provisions of s.25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 created their such right. The respondents in the OA filed a reply contending that the petitioners not appointed according to the recruitment rules, were not entitled to employment in the department concerned on a permanent basis by way of regularization. The Tribunal held that on the facts the petitioners not appointed to any post were not entitled to an order directing the Administration to app...
Jagabandhu Singha Rajak Vs. Shibasish Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is directed against the Order dated June 25, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Bankura in Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2006 thereby reversing the order being No.34 dated April 28, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Bankura in Misc. Case No.5 of 2003 under Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act, 1955. The respondent / petitioner herein instituted a proceeding being Misc. Case No.5 of 2003 under Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act, 1955 against the appellant / opposite party herein. The opposite party contested the said misc. case and upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge allowed the application Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act on contests. Being aggrieved by such order, the opposite party preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2006. That appeal was allowed on contest holding that the misc. case was not maintainable and as such, the said misc. case was dismissed on contests without any c...
Nabarun Bhattacharyya and Another Vs. Kotak Mohindra Bank Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
Soumen Sen, J. The order of rejection of the application for condonation of delay of 7 years 11 months and 19 days by the guarantor petitioner in preferring an appeal against the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRT) in O.A. No.131 of 2001 is the subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application. The learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as “DRAT”) rejected the said application observing that the explanation and reason given for delay does not inspire the confidence of the Tribunal. The petitioners are the guarantors. The petitioners duly contested the original recovery proceeding initiated under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “RDB” Act). The certificate was issued on 6th August, 2003. Immediately thereafter execution proceeding was initiated. A period little short of three yea...
Bhimcharan Manna Vs. Smt. Sabita Koley and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. Challenge is to the Order dated April 17, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No.84 of 1994 thereby affirming the Order dated February 25, 1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Chandannagar in Misc. Case No.18 of 1992. The appellant / petitioner herein instituted a pre-emption case being Misc. Case No.18 of 1992 under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 against the opposite party no.1 and the proforma opposite party no.2 on the ground of co-sharership and vicinity. The opposite party no.1 contested the said misc. case by denying the material allegations raised in the application. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the said misc. case on contests. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.84 of 1994 and that misc. appeal was also dismissed on contest by the impugned order. Being aggrie...
Pronoy Kanti Datta Vs. Tripti Saha and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
Raghunath Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by H. Singh in C. Case No. 1584 of 2004 under Section 138 of N.I. Act acquitted the accused Tripti Saha under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. 2. Shortly put the petitioner’s case is that on 27.05.2004 the partnership firm between the complainant and the accused person was dissolved by a deed of partnership by mutual consent and as a result of which a sum of Rs.65,500/- was to be paid to the complainant by the accused person. Accused person issued four cheques in favour of the complainant in between 28.10.2004 to 30.01.2005. Out of which three cheques of Rs. 16,000/- and one of cheque of Rs. 17,500/- on 30.11.2006 complainant presented cheque No. 642067 dated 30.11.2004 of Rs. 16,000/- to the bank and said cheque was returned with the endorsement insufficient of fund. The complainant gave a lawyer notice to the accused person to pay the amount within fifteen days from the date of the n...
Sunil Mondal and Others Vs. Hari Moyee Bachar and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-2012
Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 be kept with the record. This revisional application has arisen out of an order passed on May 15, 2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah. The impugned order was passed in connection with an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 are the co-sharers and the Sale Deed executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 is illegal, invalid, collusive and not binding upon the plaintiffs along with other reliefs. The said suit was filed in the year 2006 which has since been re-numbered as Title Suit 31 of 2007. The defendant no. 2 is the mother of the party who is sought to be added under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant no. 2 entered appearance and filed a written statement on May 7, 2007 in which in paragraph 4 she has categorical...
Roopachera Tea Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Other ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. The writ petitioners have questioned the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 8th November, 2009 passed by the District Judge, Jalpaiguri in case No.1 of 2009. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the Anandapur Tea Estate was previously owned by the Rahut, a Zaminder family of Jalpaiguri. They constituted a family partnership under the name of M/s. Rahut Syndicate for control and management of Anandapur Tea Estate. After the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act of 1953 came into force upon determination of ceiling of land for tea gardens by Government of West Bengal, 1560.31 acres of land was allotted to be retained by the said Rahuts for tea plantation and ancillary purposes and a temporary lease for an area of 1560.31 acres of land was granted in favour of M/s. Rahut Syndicate in 1977. Subsequently, upon determination, 30 years lease was granted in favour of M/s. Rahut Syndicate on November 19, ...
Baidya Das Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgement and Order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Siliguri in connection with S. Case No.75(S) of 2008/S.T.No.11/2009 thereby convicting the appellant, Baidya Das, for committing offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.5000/-. The Judgement impugned has been challenged on the following grounds:- a). that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective; b). that the learned trial court failed to take into consideration that how PW 1 and PW 2 came to know about the incident; c). that the learned trial court was oblivious of the fact that Kamala Sarkar, land-lady, was not examined; d). that the learned trial court failed to take into note that the alleged commission of rape took place in a common kitchen used by th...
Harish Chand Jaiswal Vs. Cesc Limited and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WP 78.OF 201.HARISH CHAND JAISWAL Versus CESC LIMITED AND OTHERS BEFORE :The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date :11. h September, 2012. Mr.J.K.Sanwarwala, Advocate ..for petitioner Mr.Debanjan Mukherjee, Advocate for CESC The Court :- By this writ petition the petitioner seeks new commercial connection to his premises. A written objection has been raised by the private respondents and although according to the licensing company the same has been disposed of, the said is denied by the licensing company, as no hearing was given. No inspection could be made for obstruction caused by the private respondents to grant of access to the meter board position to the inspecting team of the licensing company. In spite of service, none appears on behalf of the private respondents. Accordingly, private respondents are directed to allow access to the officers of the licensing company for purpose of ascertaining space ...
Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Satyawan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-2012
A.P.413 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MAGMA FINCORP LTD.-VersusSATYAWAN & ANR. Appearance: Mr.Aniruddha Mitra, Adv...for the petitioner. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : September 11, 2012. The Court : The respondents are not represented despite previous service. The receiver reports that the asset that forms the subject-matter of the agreement between the parties could not be inventorized since it was not available where the receiver was taken. The petitioner says that an award has been passed in its favour on July 28, 2012 but the same has not become executable yet. A.P.No.413 of 2012, which is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is disposed of by permitting the receiver to appoint an agent. If the receivers agent is able to inform the receiver of the whereabouts of the asset, such that the receiver can proceed to make an inventory thereof within seven weeks from date, t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »