Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-20-2002
Reported in : (2003)1CALLT463(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made by one Shri Hanumanmal Surana and four others being heirs of one Joychandmal Suraria, since deceased, heirs and representatives of one Tolaram Surana since deceased one of the sons of Joychandmal Surana also since deceased being petitioner Nos. 6A to 6D. They have made their respective grievances as against 1, 4 and 5 theSecretary, Ministry of Defence and others and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Life Insurance Corporation of India and another. From the nature of the grievances I find that the actual relief sought for by way of writ of mandamus against such respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for taking possession of the respective plot of land from 1, 4 and 5 to transfer the plot to the petitioners by executing necessary conveyance after accepting the balance consideration and deliver peaceful vacant possession thereof to them.2. From the very inception of final hearing before this Court a question cropped up as to whether such relief can be granted by the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-13-2002
Reported in : (2002)2CALLT417(HC),(2002)IIILLJ310Cal
Dipak Prokash Kundu, J. 1. In this writ proceeding the writ petitioners have challenged a letter dated 14th November, 2000 issued by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) for Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd. (a Government of India Undertaking). The relevant part of the aforesaid letter dated 14th November, 2000 is set out hereunder :'The President GRWLtd. Clerk's Union, 43/46, Garden Reach Road, Calcutta-700 024. Re. : Termination of Agreement dated 9th May, 1988 Dear Sir, The Management is regretfully constrained to give you notice hereby that due to supervening impossibility, the Agreement dated 9th May, 1988 shall stand terminated with effect from 15th January, 2001. Yours faithfully, For Garden ReachShipbuilders & Engineers Ltd. Sd/- (illegible)Dy. General Manager (Personnel)' 2. There are three petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered trade union. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner union and the respondent company on 9th May, 1988 signed a Mem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : (2002)IILLJ506Cal
D.K. Seth, J.Case of the Petitioners:1. The petitioners are the employees of the canteen of the Central Bank of India. They claimed to be absorbed on the principle as enunciated in the case of Parimal Chandra Raha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1666 : 1995 Suppl (2) SCC 611 : 1995-II-LLJ-339. Drawing inspiration from the decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers Union, reported in : (2000)ILLJ1618SC it is contended that the petitioners are similarly situated with the Canteen Workers involved in the said case, and as such should be granted the same benefit of absorption. He elaborately submits and points out various materials before this Court, in order to come to conclusion that the provisions for canteen is a part of the conditions of service and as such the employees are the workmen of the Bank concerned. He sought to distinguish the decision in the case State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union v. State Bank of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-19-2002
Reported in : (2002)3CALLT45(HC),(2003)IILLJ27Cal
A.K. Banerjee, J.1. The writ petitioner was a conductor of South Bengal State Transport Corporation. On a surprise check in the subject vehicle where the petitioner was acting as conductor on 9th June, 1982 a sum of Rs. 115.05 was found excess in the bag of the delinquent. It also revealed that from 20 passengers the delinquent realised Rs. 340.20 without issuing any ticket to them. The writ petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 11th June, 1982 and thereafter proceeded departmentally. The enquiry officer by his report dated 19th January, 1984 held the writ petitioner guilty of the charges brought against him. In reply to the second show cause notice the writ petitioner by a letter dated 31st January, 1984 admitted the charges and prayed for mercy. Such reply was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and he was removed from service with immediate effect. The order of the disciplinary authority passed on 22nd March, 1984 by the Managing Director of the said corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-11-2002
Reported in : (2003)1CALLT114(HC)
A.K. Bisi, J.1. In F.M.A. No. 471 of 1978 a Division Bench of this Court has recommended to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a Full Bench of 5 Judges for deciding the following question:'Whether or not, a transferee after the date of vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, is entitled to a notice for a proceeding under Section 44(2a) of the said Act.'2. However, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has constituted this Special Bench of three Judges. After the constitution of this Bench we wanted to send the reference back to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench of 5 Judges. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties submitted before us that this Special Bench as constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice can dispose of the matter by answering the same as the Division Bench by mistake instead of sending the aforesaid question to be answered by a Special Bench has recommended a Full Bench of 5 Judges when there was a difference of opinion betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-15-2002
Reported in : (2002)2CALLT242(HC),2002(2)CHN396,(2002)IIILLJ388Cal
S.K. Mukherjee, J.1. In this Letters Patent appeal the Judgment and order dated September 8, 1995 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court is under challenged.2. The respondent No. 1 in this appeal, Nallni Kanta Ghosh, moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as writ petition in short), inter alia, challenging the order of the bank directing him to retire from service on and from November 1, 1993 and to direct the bank to continue him in service till the attainment of 60 (sixty) years of age.3. United Bank of India Limited was a banking company. The writ petitioner was in employment of Government of West Bengal and he applied on June 4, 1969 for appointment as an Officer of the Bank. United Bankof India Limited offered him appointment in Officer Grade II contained in a letter dated July 15, 1969. Paragraph 14 of the said letter of offer ran as under :'14. Please sign and return the duplicate (enclosed) of this letter of appointm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-26-2002
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR83],(2003)ILLJ331Cal
D.K. Seth, J. The question: 1. In the present case a dispute was raised between the workmen and the employer. Ultimately, the impugned award was passed on July 13, 1998 on the basis of an agreement between the parties incorporating the terms thereof. From the award, it was pointed out that the counsel for the employer had no objection regarding the passing of the award in terms of the conditions contained in Annexure 'B' (Ex. W/2) to the application for compromise. The award had incorporated the terms of compromise as part of the award (Annexure 'A') after having examined and found the said terms and conditions as legal and fair. It is now being challenged on the ground that this award is not an award in the eye of law, since it has not adjudicated the alleged dispute. In the alleged dispute, there was no relationship of employer and employee and as such, there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-19-2002
Reported in : II(2003)ACC751,2003ACJ765,(2003)1CALLT248(HC)
A. Chakrabarti, J.1. This appeal arises out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assessing the compensation at Rs. 1,30,000/-.2. The claim application was filed by the parents of victim Sandip Chowdhury who died by reason of a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal found that the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle caused the accident and the death of the victim. Considering the age of the victim multiplier has been applied by the tribunal at 16 taking into consideration his earning as Rs. 1850/- per month as salary. Age of the victim at the time of death was found as 27 years.3. The appeal was filed by the Insurance Company contending that in such facts the age of the parents being the applicants is required to be considered for the purpose of applying the multiplier. This only contention of the appellant insurer has been contested by the learned advo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-19-2002
Reported in : II(2003)ACC478,2003ACJ778
A. Chakrabarti and R.N. Sinha, JJ.1. This appeal was filed against a judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowing an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.2. The claim application was filed for compensation as the victim being the son of the petitioner while driving a Maruti car was hit by a private taxi coming at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and as a consequence of such accident the victim sustained severe injury and, therefore, removed to the hospital where he expired soon after his admission.3. The Tribunal came to a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and death occurred due to the said accident. Further finding of the Tribunal is that the victim was a businessman and used to earn from his own business and the yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,39,176 and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Oct-01-2002
Reported in : 2003LC560(Calcutta),2003(156)ELT841(Cal)
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This reference application under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter called the said Act] has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in respect of an order dated 21-6-2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Regional Bench, Calcutta [hereinafter called as CEGAT], In the said application, 8 (eight) question were framed.2. The said application came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court and the said Division Bench, by an order dated 17-4-2001, after hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, directed the Tribunal to refer to only one question for the opinion of this Court.3. The question which was referred to by the Division Bench is as follows :'Whether the drawback is allowable more particularly in terms of Rule 13(2)(iv) of the Drawback Rules, 1995 wherein the exporters were required to submit a valid insurance certificate along with the drawback claim. A perusal of t...
Tag this Judgment!