Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... subject to the operation of [the mines act, 1952 (35 of 1952)] or [a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces of the union, a railway running shed or a hotel, restaurant or eating place]; 30. on behalf of the state-respondents neither any material was produced before the learned tribunal nor even before this court at the time ..... by reason of the proviso to section 6(3) and section 6(1)(g) of the said west bengal estates acquisition act, 1953 is competent to resume the said subject land. 2. the learned tribunal, therefore, did not find any reason to interfere with the order of resumption passed by the state government and dismissed the ..... the provisions of section 6(1)(g) and section 6(3) of the west bengal estates acquisition act, 1953 have no manner of application in respect of the subject land. 28. the learned government representative clearly submitted before the learned tribunal that the factory, being sodepur pottery, was inoperative on the date of vesting. the finally published .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
..... to say, murder punishable u/s 302 of the indian penal code and for the offence u/s 71 of the armed forces act for committing a civil offence, that is to say, using arms for unlawful purpose punishable u/s 27 of the arms act, 1959. on the basis of those charges, one gcm was convened and witnesses were examined from both the sides ..... court martial authority. we do not find any illegality in this respect so far as imposition of punishment is concerned and as such we are of the opinion that this tribunal should not interfere with the finding of the gcm which was subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority. the appeal being devoid of merit, should, in our opinion, be rejected. ..... and c) to be reduced to the ranks. 3. as the accused/appellant is aggrieved by the said decision of the gcm, so he has preferred this appeal before this tribunal. 4. it will be better, first of all, to mention the allegations on the basis of which the gcm was commenced against the accused/appellant. it is the case .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.11.2007 by which the Secretary to the Government of west Bengal Mass Education Extension Department directed the recovery of the overdrawn amount from the writ petitioner and also to stop the annual increment w.e.f. 1.4.2001.2. The writ petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher in the vacant post in Asutosh Institution- a DA getting institution imparting education to the physically handicapped. The approval of such appointment was duly accorded by the Director of the Technical Education, West Bengal on 30.1.1986 with retrospective effect from 5.8.1985. Subsequently the writ petitioner was appointed as Principal w.e.f. 1.4.1988 and such approval was granted by the Deputy Director of Technical Education, West Bengal on 11.10.1988. Subsequently the Government of West Bengal Mass Education Extension Department issued a memo dated 30.3.2001 sanctioning the sponsorship to the said Asutosh Institution. It was specifically mentioned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
..... 3907 (w)/2002). the said writ petition was admitted and heard for the first time at calcutta high court on 3rd april, 2002 and subsequently transferred to this tribunal on 18th may, 2010 by a judicial order from calcutta high court and re-numbered as ta 94/2010 after being admitted on 5th august, 2010 at this ..... tribunal. the transfer application was initially dismissed for default since none was present for the petitioner despite repeated calls on 13th september, 2010. it was later restored vide ..... only the delay aspect, but also another issue, wherein the opponents felt that the petitioner could have filed statutory complaint under the provisions of section 26 of the army act, 1950. these two aspects were contested by the petitioner in paragraph-7 of the rejoinder by rightly mentioning that statutory provisions for complaint was not applicable in this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... the immoveable property. 44. in the case of d. n. banerjee vs. p. r. mukherjee (supra), the supreme court was considering a matter where an industrial tribunal set aside the order of dismissal of two municipal employees and on an application by the municipality to the high court, the latter refused to interfere. the matter went ..... was not the violation of terms of a purely commercial contract but the elements of public interest are very much present and therefore, we do not find any force in the first contention of the appellants that the learned single judge erred in law in entertaining the writapplication. 30. as regards the order impugned in the ..... order impugned. therefore, the first question that arises for determination in these appeals is whether the learned single judge was justified in entertaining a writapplication challenging the act of a state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of india in determining a lease by exercising the right of forfeiture in terms of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. challenge is to the order dated april 21, 2009 passed by the learned municipal assessment tribunal, first bench, kolkata municipal corporation in appeal no.2172 of 2007. the appellant has preferred this application contending, inter alia, that he entered into an agreement for sale of a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant/petitioner and is directed against the order dated July 16, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.74 of 1994. By the said application, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated February 10, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge. The plaintiffs/opposite party nos.1 to 6 instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.74 of 1994 against the petitioner being the defendant no.2 along with other opposite party nos.7, 8 and 9 being the defendant nos.1, 3 & 4 therein for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction. In that suit, the defendant is contesting by filing a written statement. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiff came up with an application for addition of party. Another application was also filed by him for amendment of the plaint. Both the petitions were allowed by the learned Trial Judge by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... , air 1991 sc 700, 75 cwn 195 and air 1979 cal 79 to the effect that the relevant date for determining the valuation under section 4(1) of the partition act would be the date when the member shareholder undertakes to buy the share of the transferee provided such undertaking is given after share of the transferee has been ascertained by ..... a co-sharer when transfer was made to an outsider. it is not the situation. in the instant case preemption has been sought for under section 3 of the partition act. moreover, the valuation was assessed in the year 1972, that is, more than 35 years back and the co-plaintiff/defendant no.2 wanted to purchase the share of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... defendants/petitioners are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. they also filed applications under section 17(1) & 17(2) of the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1956 and those petitions were disposed of accordingly. owing to financial stringency, the defendants could not make payment of rent from february, 2005 to april, 2007. for ..... the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. in that suit, the defendants filed application under section 17(1) & 17(2) of the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1956. both the applications were disposed of by the learned trial judge. the rent for the premises in suit was rs.32/- per month payable according to ..... the learned trial judge has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay and he has rightly allowed the application under section 17(3) of the 1956 act thereby striking out the defence against delivery of possession. the learned trial judge has passed a reasoned order in support of his disposal of the applications .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Challenge is to the order no.118 dated July 17, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Arambag in Title Suit No.13 of 1996 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant.2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.13 of 1996 for recovery of possession on the ground of reasonable requirement, default, etc. The defendant/petitioner herein was contesting the said suit all along. After his death, his heirs, that is, the present petitioners have been substituted. The contention of the defendant is that during pendency of the suit, the landlord/owner got other accommodations and his accommodations were rented to other persons. This fact was not known to him earlier and so, he filed the application for additional written statement when he became aware of the fact. That application for filing written statement was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application...
Tag this Judgment!