Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. A vital and interesting question has cropped up before us in the instant tribunal application as to the competence of the Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal constituted under West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Tribunal Act) under Article 323(B) of the Constitution of India to deal, entertain and/or set aside the orders, decrees and judgments passed by the Civil Judge having jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter under the Specified Act as defined under section 2(r) of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act 1997. 2. Initially when the said Tenancy Tribunal Act was promulgated it was made applicable in respect of five Acts. Those are the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act 1953, the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955, the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fisherman Act 1975 and the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act 1979. By an amendment Act, the said West Bengal La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
J.N. Patel, C.J. This appeal has been preferred by an ex-employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited and his son dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.239 (W) of 2002. The appellant/petitioner no.1 was an employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited and was posted at Barachawk Seam Incline under Sitarampur area as an Engineer having E2 Grade and uninterrupted service record. It was the case of the appellant/petitioner that due to the long service the petitioner no.1 suffered from various ailments including serious heart disease and his health condition started deteriorating from the year 1987. The appellant/petitioner was referred to the Apex Medical Board by the management of the respondent no.2 company and he was declared medically unfit for service and physically disabled person on 20.l0.1989 by the Apex Medical Board. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the service condition, the petitioner was entitled f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. :1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 28th September, 2011. The appellants have challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation & Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and the rules framed thereunder before the Hon’ble Single Judge and prayed for a declaration that the said Act and all consequences following from the Act is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and/or void. A writ of certiorari is prayed for calling upon the Respondents to produce all Records including documents and/or decision of and/or Records of State Government in connection therewith.2. The grounds for assailing the said Act the writ petitioner put forwarded the grounds are that the said Act of 2011 is a colourable piece of legislation and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution of India and violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India.3. It is further stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 28th September, 2011. The appellants have challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and the rules framed thereunder before the Hon’ble Single Judge and prayed for a declaration that the said Act and all consequences following from the Act is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and/or void. A writ of certiorari is prayed for calling upon the Respondents to produce all Records including documents and/or decision of and/or Records of State Government in connection therewith. 2. The grounds for assailing the said Act the writ petitioner put forwarded the grounds are that the said Act of 2011 is a colourable piece of legislation and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution of India and violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is further stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
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!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Honble Justice Mr.Ashim Kumar Banerjee And The Honble Justice Mr.Arijit Banerjee APO360of 2013 CS212of 2013 UCO Bank -Vs.Saumyendra Roy Chaudhury & ORS.For the appellant : Mr.Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Debdutta Sen, Adv.Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.For respondents 5, 6, 7 : Mr.Bimal Chatterjee, Ld Adv.Gen. For respondent No.1 Mr.S.N. Mookherjee, Sr.Adv.: Mr.Ratnanko Banerji, Adv.Mr.Shaunak Mitra, Adv.Mr.Siddhartha Sharma, Adv.Mr.Tarun Aich, Adv.Ms.Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 18th, 19th and 20th March, Heard on : 2014 Judgment On : 15/05/2014 Arijit Banerjee, J. The rules and regulations of UCO Bank, the appellant herein provided for representation of the share-holders on the Board of Directors of the Bank in the form of share-holder directORS.The decision of the Nomination Committee rejecting the nomination of the respondent No.1 for election to the Board of the Bank in the category of a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
FORM No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present: THE HONBLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE W.P. No.164 of 2013 Satyanarain Fatehpuria Vs. CESC Ltd. & Ars. Advocate for the petitioner: Mr. Pratyush Patwari Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Subir Kumar Sanyal Mr. Ratul Biswas Judgment on:8. h April, 2015. ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.:- 1. A final order of assessment made by the Assessing Officer-IV of the CESC Ltd. on 14th November, 2012 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is assailed by the petitioner in this proceeding. In this order, the writ petitioner, who is a domestic consumer of CESC Ltd. has been found to have made unauthorized use of electricity and the petitioners dues on that count has been assessed to be Rs.2,34,150.75 and Rs.22,945.46 for electricity charges and electricity duty respectively. Such dues has been computed on the basis of unauthorized use 365 days preceding the date of disconnection. Supply to the petitioner was discon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Judgement APO NO.308 OF2016IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE .NAVEEN GOEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PORT) AND ANR. BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 10th February, 2017 Ms.PAYEL SAHA,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT MR.J.P.KHAITAN, SR.ADVOCATE, AMICUS CURIAE ANIRUDDHA BOSE.J : This matter was listed today primarily for considering an objection note of the Stamp Reporter, High Court, Original Side in relation to registering the stay petition of the appellant taken out in connection with the appeal. This appeal is against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The stay petition is supported by an affidavit affirmed before the Attache(Passport).High Commission of India, Singapore on 14th December 2016. It is for this reason the department had declined to accept the petition for registering the same for subsequent li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A.No.237 of 2016 C.S.No.7 of 2016 SKIPPER LIMITED VS. AKASH BANSAL & ORS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv., Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Adv., Prithviraj Sinha, Adv., Siddhartha Das, Adv., Phiroze Edulji, Adv., Abhishek Bhutoria, Adv., Sourish Banerjee, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv., Mr. D. Mukherjee, Adv., Mrs. Shomrita Das, Adv. Hearing Concluded On :19. 07.2017. Judgment On :9. h August, 2017. Soumen Sen, J.:- The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of the word mark BANSAL.. The petitioner claims that petitioner has been manufacturing, selling and marketing metal pipes manufactured under the trade mark BANSAL. with the mark SKIPPER. suffixed thereto from 1981 without any interruption. The petitioners turn over during the last financial year was Rs.1300 crores. The petitioner applied for registration of w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN G.A. 3306 of 2016 E.C. No.487 of 2013 SLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. Vs. LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. For the Award-Holder : Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sailendra Jain, Adv., Mr. Asit Dey, Adv. For the Judgment-Debtor/Applicant : Mr. Anindya Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. D.N. Sharma, Adv., Mr. S. Sarkar, Adv., Mrs. S. Mukhopadhyay, Adv., Mr. T. Aich, Adv. Hearing Concluded On :10.08.2017. Judgment On :22. d August, 2017. Soumen Sen, J.:- The judgment-debtor is the applicant. The judgment-debtor has filed this application ostensibly under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 but essentially for having a second look at the foreign award, notwithstanding an earlier order dated 4th September, 2014, by which the question of maintainability including enforceability of the foreign award was decided. The earlier challenge was o...
Tag this Judgment!