Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1991Cal181
ORDER1. The writ petitioner has challenged the Memo dated 28th June, 1988 issued by the Assistant Assessor-Collector, Ward No. 93, Tollygung Tax Department, of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation intimat-ing to the petitioner refusing to mutate his name in respect of Premises No. 1/345, Gariahat Road (345, Jodhpur Park), Calcutta-68. The case of the writ petitioner briefly is that the father of the petitioner, Sudeb Sundar Chakraborty since deceased, was a member of Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd., a body corporate constituted under the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940 (now W. B. Co-operative Societies Act, 1983), The Society owned and possessed a big plot of land at Premises No. 1, Gariahat Road, which was sub-divided and distributed amongst its members according to the value of the shares and the father of the petitioner was allotted the Plot No. 345 by the Society whereon he constructed a two-stories building. The father of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2008(2)CHN546
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. These writ petitions were filed as Public Interest Litigations challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of about 1000 acres of land within the following mouzas, a) Gopalnagar, b) Singherbheri, c) Beraberi, d) Khaserberi and e) Bajemelia within the Police Station of Singur in the District of Hooghly.2. Such acquisition process has been challenged by the writ petitioners mainly on the ground that the said area of land is the source of livelihood of 10,000 agricultural households and destroying the most of fertile lands which cannot be replaced, apart from the other subsidiary industries.3. The writ petitioners challenged the entire acquisition process on the ground of mala fide and arbitrary intention and further for violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that for setting up a Small Car Project by Tatas would have been an acquisition of land following the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT490(HC)
P.K. Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The petitioner herein has filed this writ petition challenging the validity and/or legality of the order of dismissal issued by the respondent No. 4 pursuant to the decision of the Board of Directors of the Dakshin Paikbarh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Cashier at Baguranjalpai Branch of Dakshin Paikhbarh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited. Subsequently, the said petitioner was selected for the post of Branch Cashier and was also appointed as Ledger Keeper (In-charge), Deposit Section, in the Head Office.3. The Chairman of the Dakshin Paikbarh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited served a notice upon the petitioner on 11th September 2000 asking him to show cause explaining his conduct in respect of the various allegations and/or misconducts mentioned in the said show cause notice. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice denying all the allegations mentioned therein.4. Subsequently, the Board of Dire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN241
D.K. Seth, J. Prelude:1. These two appeals involve identical question of law and fact. Therefore both these matters were taken up and heard simultaneously. The appeals arise out of the interim orders granted by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions filed by the respondent Sanjeevani Projects (P) Ltd. and Green Valley Towers (P) Ltd. respectively.1.1. In course of hearing of the application for interim order the respective Counsel for the parties addressed the Court on the merit of the appeal. Therefore, at the suggestions of the parties the appeal was taken up for hearing. At the initial hearing of the appeal the parties had addressed the Court on the merit of the writ petitions as well. Since the Court was invited to decide the matter even on the question involved in the writ petition, therefore, it was deemed fit that the two writ petitions should also be disposed of, and the learned Counsel for the respective parties jointly suggested that the records of the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1986Cal212
M.N. Roy, J. 1. This is an application for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, which according to the Stamp reporter of this Court, was 4 days, but the answering Respondents claimed such delay to be much more. 2. It would appear that on or about 25th September 1984, in Civil Rule No. 13194 (W) of 1983(Sankar Biswas v. State of West Bengal), the learned trial Judge, after overriding the orders as passed by other Division Benches of this Court, had directed as under : --'There will be an interim order of status quo as on today confined only to the petitioners. The Respondents will be at liberty to proceed against any other party who may be involved in the matter which is the subject-matter of the present rule and this interim order of status quo will not stand in the way of State Government taking any steps in obtaining sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. if suchsanction is necessary in the case of the petitioners. Affidavit-in-opposition to the main Rule to be filed within ...
Tag this Judgment!