Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-23-2009
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the State of West Bengal and its authorities assailing the judgment and order passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and where under the said learned Judge allowed the writ petition on merits. While allowing the writ petition, learned Single Judge of this Court declared that the entire acquisition proceedings relating to the property in question stood lapsed on account of publication of the award after the expiry of the prescribed period as provided in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the award, having been made in a lapsed proceeding, is a nullity and accordingly, quashed the same.2. The facts relating to the acquisition proceedings in respect of the property in question are briefly narrated hereinafter:On 16th June, 1998, a notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-07-2009
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 6th February, 2009 rendered in W.P. No. 477(w) of 2009. By the aforesaid judgment, the Learned Single Judge has passed the following operative directions:On this petition being received, an interim order was made staying all further proceedings before the patent office. Since the petitioner says that its appeal from the order dated November 7, 2008 is pending and the petitioner has not had an opportunity of presenting its case before the appellate tribunal, the hearing of the private respondent's objection to the patent will remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from date or the first opportunity that the petitioner is afforded to make a prayer for an interim order in the appeal, whichever is earlier. If the petitioner cannot persuade the appellate tribunal to allot it a date for hearing its interim prayer within the time stipulated, it will be open to the con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-31-2009
Inadira Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 29th September, 2003, whereby the learned Single Judge inter alia allowed the writ petition being W.P. No. 17229 (W) of 2001 (Prabir Kr. Ghosh and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) and directed the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission to recommend those of the writ petitioners who had ranked within 66th in the panel for appointment to appropriate schools and further directed the Regional School Service Commission not to advertise vacancies for the posts for which the writ petitioners had been selected, without recommending the writ petitioner for appointment.2. Before 1st November, 1997, the Managing Committee of a recognized aided non-government school was, in terms of Rule 28 of the Management of Recognized Non-government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 45(1) and 45(2)(d) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, entit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-21-2009
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. On the menu is a limited diagnosis of the state of health of the public healthcare in the State. A clutch of petitions challenges a government memorandum of June 12, 2009 and subsequent notices inviting tender for supply of cooked diet for indoor patients at State-run hospitals and like institutions. Most of the petitioners, including the ones in the first petition, are existing suppliers of cooked diet to Government hospitals; some of the other petitioners are not existing suppliers but, like the petitioners in the first petition, intended to put in their bids at the time that the petitions were instituted. The petitioners challenge the notification and the tender terms on two primary grounds: that the eligibility criteria set therein are absurd and mala fide and have no nexus with the work covered thereby; and, that the revised rates for supply of cooked diet to all Government-run hospitals are irrational and contrary to the observations found in at least one ea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-24-2009
Indira Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 19th June, 2001, of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ application being C.R. No. 13010 (W) of 1982, filed by the appellant.2. The appellant was a Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). On 17th May, 1980, when the appellant was posted at the CISF unit at Farakka, a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant, wherein it was alleged that the appellant had wilfully not attended the Commandant's ''Sabha'' held at 17.00 hours on 16th May, 1980 and had instigated other personnel of the CISF not to attend the same, thereby acting in a manner unbecoming of a member of the CISF.3. It is not in dispute that the appellant was not present at the Commandant's 'Sabha'. The appellant's case was that the appellant was not aware of the 'Sabha' and accordingly went to a cinema show.4. By a letter dated 28th May, 1980, the appellant sought inspection of the report of the preliminary enquiry and the stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-06-2009
Reported in : LC2009(2)323
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner holds a patent for a process of treating exhaust gas emission produced during the combustion of coal in a coal combustion plant for reducing suspended particulate matter. The application to protect the invention was made in January of 1999 and the patent was sealed in the petitioner's favour on April 26, 2005 whereupon the grant dated back to the time of the application. The petitioner's essential complaint is the illegal procedure adopted by the controller of patents to insist on hearing an objection of the fifth respondent to the patent without first taking up the petitioner's application for amendment of the patent.2. The petitioner maintains that it is the application for amendment that had to be taken up first and questions the controller's rationale to reject the proposed amendment 'for the time being.' The immediate grievance and the foundation for this petition are somewhat different.3. The writ petition is being disposed of without calling ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-27-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Cal243
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The writ petitioner challenges the respondent bank's conduct in cancelling a tender and inviting further offers without reference to the petitioner who was the only eligible bidder following the initial invitation. The writ petitioner insists that upon a person being identified as the only eligible or the most qualified bidder, a right vests in such person which cannot be lightly disturbed.2. The respondent bank, controlled by the government, took possession of an immovable property under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and issued a notice under Rules 8(6) and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioner responded to the sale notice of March 13, 2008, deposited the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- along with his bid and his offer was found to be the only one eligible in terms of the bank's advertisement. On April 22, 2008 the bank acknowledged that the petitioner's was the only qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-11-2009
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5th August, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Midnapore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 189 of 2001 thereby dismissing the said suit. Being dissatisfied, the husband has come up with the present appeal.2. The appellant before us filed a suit being Title Suit No. 189 of the 2001 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Midnapore for divorce and the case made out by the appellant may be summed up thus:(a) The parties were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 19th July, 1999 in the house of the father of the respondent at Bidhan Nagar Town, District- Midnapore within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.(b) The appellant was a student of Midnapore College from which he graduated with Honours in Chemistry in the year 1986 and the father of the respondent at the relevant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-11-2009
Dipankar Datta, J.1. 'Merit must be the test when choosing the best', said Hon'ble V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in Dr. Jagdish Saran and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in : AIR 1980 SC 820. This ought to be the 'mantra' of every public authority entrusted with the task of selecting candidates, be it in the sphere of employment or admission to education institutions or representing the nation or the state in varied activities, and the like. According to the petitioners, there has been a conscious effort on the part of the authorities of the University of Calcutta (hereafter the University) to promote mediocrity at the expense of merit and they urge the Court of Writ to undo the wrong perpetrated by it to their utter detriment and prejudice.2. To resolve the dispute, its origin, the relief claimed and the respective stands of the rival parties may be noticed.3. The University published an advertisement on or about 11.8.2009 inviting applications for admission to various Post-Graduate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-01-2009
Sanjib Banerjee, J. 1. The writ petitioners question a decision of April 7, 2009 by the grievance redressal committee of the respondent private bank declaring the petitioner company to be a willful defaulter within the meaning of a Reserve Bank of India master circular dated July 1, 2008. There are several levels on which the challenge has been launched. The petitioners allege that the master circular is unconstitutional and, in any event, the grievance redressal mechanism contemplated there under is a meaningless, facile exercise. They say that even if the master circular is upheld in its entirety, the relevant committee of the bank may still be found to have acted without jurisdiction since the master circular applies to lender-borrower transactions between a bank and another; and, the nature of the agreement which is the subject matter of the proceedings did not involve a lender-borrower relationship between the bank and the petitioner company. The petitioners also allege violation ...
Tag this Judgment!