Kolkata Court June 2014 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.
Amit Das Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
WP No.1134 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE AMIT DAS GUPTA Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 2nd June, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Kaushik Chanda, Adv..for the petitioner. Mr.Soumya Majumder, Adv..for the respondents. The Court : A pure question of law has been urged by a dismissed employee of Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Limited, a public sector undertaking of the Central Government. According to the petitioner, the inquiry officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner could be carried to the extent of finding the petitioner having been negligent. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the inquiry officer and rendered an opinion of the petitioners connivance in the matters complained of. But the disciplinary authority did not issue any show-cause notice to the petitioner while disagreeing with the inquiry officers report and handing out a punishment to the petitioner. The...
Partha Pratim Datta Vs. Board of Trustees for
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
WP No.840 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction PARTHA PRATIM DATTA Versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 2nd June, 2014. Appearance: Mr.Hiranmay Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr.Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv.Mr.Arunava Ghosh, Adv.Ms.Sujata Mukherjee, Adv.The Court : The grievance of the petitioner is that because of the inordinate time taken up in couRs.of the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner, the petitioners promotion has been thwarted though only the minor punishment of censure has been awarded against the petitioner following the disciplinary proceedings. Since the petitioner did not complain of the delay in the conduct of the proceedings prior to its conclusion and has come up only upon the disciplinary proceedings being concluded, there does not appear to be much merit in such grievance, particularly, since it appears that the original inquiry officer was changed and the ...
Syamal Ganguli Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
ORDER SHEET A.P.No.572 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SYAMAL GANGULI Versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE Co.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date : 2nd June, 2014. Appearance : Mr.Shambo Chakraborty, Adv.Mr.C.Dutta, Adv. for the petitioner Ms Sumita Mookerjee, Adv.Mr.Chandan Kumar Lal, Adv. for the respondent The difference Court between : the Since it is parties as evident to the that there quantum of is a the petitioners entitlement under the second claim, but there has been a denial of the claim in respect of the fiRs.and third claiMs.the appointment of an arbitrator may not be to the benefit of the parties as only a part of the disputes may be resolved thereby. The petitioner insists that the fiRs.claim lodged by the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected as was the third claim on account of post-hospitalisation charges. The strange arbitration clause that is adopted by the insurance company pertains only to the disputes relati...
Loknath Prasad GuptA. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
ORDER SHEET CA No.221 OF2014CP NO.350 OF1991IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IN THE MATTER OF : HOLMAN CLIMAX MANUFACTURING LTD.(IN LIQN.) AND LOKNATH PRASAD GUPTA. VS THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 2nd June, 2014. MR.UTPAL BOSE, ADVOCATE APPEARS MR.S.C.PRASAD,ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDNET NO.1 MR.S.LAHA, MR.S.JANA,ADVOCATES FOR WORKERS The Court : By this application the petitioner herein seeks to set aside the notice dated 21st January, 2014 on the ground that the same is contrary to the order passed by the appeal court on 1st February, 2012. By the said order certain issues were to be considered by the adjudicating authority. A reasoned order was to be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. There has been no compliance of the aforesaid. Therefore the notice be set aside. On behalf of the adjudicating authority it has been contended that waiver is sought in respect of payme...
Hooghly Stocks and Bonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhirendro Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-2014
GA No.1420 of 2011 with CS No.142 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Hooghly Stocks & Bonds PVT.LTD.Versus Dhirendro Mullick & ORS.Before: The Honble Justice I.P.MUKERJ.Date: 2nd June 2014 Appearance: Mr.Ahin Choudhury, Advocate The Court: This interim application in aid of the above suit is appearing for final hearing. None appears for the defendants although an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the second, third and fourth defendants has been filed. It is considered by the Court while passing this order. It may be said that the fiRs.defendant Dhirendro Mullick has died and his heirs substituted in his place. They have not filed any affidavit-inopposition. The suit is substantially for specific performance of an alleged agreement to lease of 2004. The plaintiff has annexed this document as annexure- B to the plaint. The document is undated and is signed by the Mullicks. It is also initialed by them on each and every page. Subsequent steps of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›