Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal526,56CWN124
Chakravartti, J.1. This Rule raises a fundamental question under the West Bengal Bargadars Act, 1950. It was contended that a Conciliation, Board established under the Act or an Appellate Officer appointed under it, was not a 'tribunal' within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution and therefore this Court had no jurisdiction under the Article to interfere with a decision of either of those authorities. The Rule was issued under Article 227 and is directed against certain orders passed under the Bargadars Act.2. If We could accept the contention as correct, it would obviously be unnecessary to proceed further and refer at all to the facts of the case. But as, in our opinion, the contention is not sound, it is necessary to state the facts.3. The opposite party is an inhabitant of village Sudhangsupur in the District of 24 Parganas and the petitioner is a Nayeb in the employment of the Sir Daniel Hamilton Estate which owns an extensive area of 'khas' lands in the locality. On the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal610,56CWN264
..... powers of the high court to interfere under article 226(1) of the constitution. the constitution came into force on january 26, 1950. the provisions of the constitution relating to the issue of directions, orders or writs are set forth in arts. 32, 139 and 226. article 32(2) runs as follows:'the supreme court shall have power to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this part.'14. the part referred to is part iii of the constitution which deals with fundamental rights.article 226(1) of the constitution ..... by which the petitioner was appointed, the nature of the inquiry if any made in the present case, the denial of a right of appeal, the alleged imperfect nature of the enquiry and the alleged arbitrary conduct of certain officers of the railway administration. it is difficult in my opinion, to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on these matters on mere affidavits. in order to get at truth it is necessary that the ..... against the action proposed by the railway administration after the order was served on him. it was, accordingly, contended that the order of removal was void under article 311(2) of the constitution. reference was made to the case of 'high commissioners for india and pakistan v. i. m. lall', 75 ind app 225 (pc), in support of the proposition that before a civil servant could be removed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal600,79Ind.Cas.520
Mookerjee, J.1. These are two appeals by the first and the second defendant respectively, in a suit for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits, upon declaration of title. The facts material for the determination of the questions in controversy are beyond dispute and may be briefly recited.2. On the 17th January, 1913, the first defendant executed four documents in favour of the plaintiff, namely:(1) a patni patta in respect of lands described in schedule ha of the plaint;(2) a darpatni patta in respect of lands described in schedule kha of the plaint;(3) a mourasi mokrari patta of the de-buttar lakhraj resumed chakran lands described in schedules ga, gha and una of the plaint; and(4) a maurasi mokrari patta of the aima and resumed chowkidari chakran lands described in schedule cha of the plaint.3. The first and second documents were taken in the name of the plaintiff himself; the third and fourth documents were taken by the plaintiff in the name of the third defendant. On the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal173
Jenkins, C.J.1. On the 12th of May 1913 Mr. Lionel Hewitt Colson, Special Superintendent, Intelligence Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, Indian Police Service, filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Additional Magistrate at Barisal, alleging that one Girindra Mohan Das and 43 others had been guilty of offences under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, Mr. Nelson, examined the complainant on oath, recorded his deposition, and directed certain warrants to issue.2. On the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 26th and 30th days of May, articles, it is said, containing comments on the criminal proceeding initiated by this complaint, described as the Barisal Conspiracy Case, were published in a newspaper called the Amrita Bazar Patrika.3. The Government of Bengal, having been advised that the publication of these articles, and each of them, and in particular the leading article of the 22nd May, 1913, constituted serious contempt of Court, the Advocate-General,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(2)CHN546
..... supreme court dismissed the said appeal and remitted the matter back to the hon'ble high court on the ground that several other contentious issues have been raised. the question arose before the hon'ble high court that whether the objection raised by the objectors objecting to the acquisition of land on various grounds have been considered by the authority. the hon'ble supreme court held that section 5a of the said act confers a valid right in favour of the person whose lands are sought to be acquired. having regard to the provisions contained in article 300a of the constitution of india, it appears that 'in exercise of power ..... from its unreasonable conduct, to the respondent. in such a situation, the court is not powerless from holding the appellant to its promise and it can be enforced by a writ of mandamus directing it to perform its statutory duty. a petition under article 226 of the constitution of india would certainly lie to direct performance of a statutory duty by 'other authority' as envisaged by article 12.164. the case of shrilekha vidyarthi v. state of u ..... is true that power of judicial review is not an appeal of the decision and the court has no right to substitute its own decision. the court would only find out such process, in case of selection or rejection or arbitrarily, if it is, arbitrary then the court would interfere in the said matter.139. the duty of the court is thus to confine itself to the question of legality. the hon'ble supreme court has specifically .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN842
..... special establishment act, 1946. learned advocate general submitted that the powers and jurisdiction of the high court under article 226 of the constitution of india are not on the same level as the powers of the supreme court under article 142 of the constitution of india. we have no hesitation in accepting that the powers exercised by the supreme court under article 142 of the constitution of india which are distinct from the powers of the high court under article 226 of the constitution. in the case of union carbide corporation (supra), it is clearly held as follows:43. it is necessary to set at rest certain misconceptions in the arguments touching the scope of the powers of this court under article 142(1) of the constitution. these issues are matters of serious public importance. the proposition that a provision in any ordinary ..... . singh v. h.p. krishi vishva vidyalaya and ors. : air2000sc3638 the supreme court again observed as follows:.apart therefrom, the language employed by this court in kekha chaturvedi 's case would suggest that this court was employing the powers conferred on it under article 142 to do complete justice. the high court does not have such powers. having found on merits in favour of the writ petitioners be do not think that the high court was justified in declining any relief to them.105. these observations were made by the supreme court as the high court had declined to grant relief to the petitioners only on the ground that respondents .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2008Cal40,(2008)1CALLT140(HC),2008(1)CHN56
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Judgment and/or order dated 28th December, 2006 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta in Appeal No. 43 of 2003 modifying the Judgment and decree dated 15th June, 1995 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta in T.A. No. 15 of 1994 at the instance of the defendant/opposite party No. 3 herein.2. In 1984, the plaintiff/petitioner (Bank) lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- to the opposite party No. 1 herein on hypothecation of plant, machinery and stocks in the factory premises situated at Jaikuni, Goragachha Road, Kolkata-700 048. The defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor for the said loan.3. The opposite party No. 1 defaulted in payment of instalment towards the loan amount. As a result, a sum of Rs. 22,11,618.62p. was accumulated towards the said loan account inclusive of interest as on 29th February, 1988. Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2009Cal31
ORDERBiswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.2. The instant writ petition was filed before this Court sometime in the year 2002 by three persons, who claim to be devotees of Sri Aurobindo and also followers of Sri Aurobindo's Yoga, namely, Integral Yoga.3. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the writ petitioners have stated their long standing association with the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo. The writ petitioners have also stated in the said paragraph that as all of them were the followers of Sri Aurobindo and believed in one path, they were acquainted to each other.4. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the writ petitioners came to know from a telecast in Khas Khabar and DD-1/Dd-7 news of 9th September, 2002 evening, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Alipore, was pleased to frame charges inter-alia against the trustees of Sri Aurobindo Trust. Gathering certain information thereafter, the writ petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(2)CHN445
Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Suit No. 620 of 1982 of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-deities.2. The plaintiff-deities' case briefly stated is as follows:One Kailash Chandra Dey, the original owner of the suit property, made out an Arpannama dated April 11, 1903 making the suit properties along with others 'debuttar' after dedicating the same in favour of Shri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur, Sri Sri Vairabeswar Shib Thakur, Sri Sri Kailash Nath Shib Thakur i.e. plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. In such Arpannama, Sri Sri Kailash Chandra Dey himself was appointed the first shebait of the plaintiff-deities. While the plaintiff-deities were being represented by such shebait and the debuttar estate under the Arpannama was being managed by such sebaits as per terms of the Arpannama, in or about 1948, a dispute arose between the then sebaits on the issue of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(1)CHN582
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. These two appeals being FMA No. 94 of 2006 and MAT No. 428 of 2007 are taken up analogously for disposal as the same point of law is involved in these two appeals. FMA No. 94 of 2006 State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Smritikana Maity and Ors. is preferred against the judgment dated 4.10.2004 in W.P. No. 17266 (W) of 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge and in MAT No. 428 of 2007 State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Harendranath Mondal and Ors. the subject-matter of challenge is the judgment dated 22.12.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 20315 (W) of 2003. In both the cases, the learned Single Judge directed the District Inspector of Schools to regularize the services of the writ petitioners by approving their respective services as organizing staffs of Classes IX and X of the concerned schools.2. In both the appeals, this Court is required to decide the legality and/or validity of the claim for regularization of organizing staff of the upgraded ...
Tag this Judgment!