REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SUDHIR KUMAR SAHA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BREEN V. AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
ALEXANDER MACHINERY (DUDLY) LTD. V. CRABTREE [REFERRED TO]
S.N. MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN LATA GHOSH VS. H K BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
SIEMENS ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING CO OF INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER GOVERNMENT BRANCH PRESS VS. D B BELLIAPPA [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI PRASAD AGARWALLA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAVI S NAIK SANJAY BANDEKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR VS. PRABHU DAYAL GROVER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF W B VS. ALPANA ROY [REFERRED TO]
JAGTAMBA DEVI VS. HEM RAM [REFERRED TO]
DIVL FOREST OFFICER KOTHAGUDEM VS. MADHUSUDHAN RAO [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. SALES TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN D A RANI LAKSHMI BAI K G BANK VS. JAGDISH SHARAN VARSHNEY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) In the motion stage the matter could be disposed of in view of the very nature of the order impugned. By the order dated 23rd April, 2009, the learned Tribunal below, namely, the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 3010 of 2008 (LRTT) passed the following order: - "This is a misconceived application. The prayer for deletion of the name of the bargadar cannot be entertained by this Court of Law. Hence, the petition is rejected."

(3.) The said order is impugned herein in the writ application. It appears that on issue of bargadar recording dispute, the matter cropped up, but the learned Tribunal did not answer any point as to why the application was misconceived. This order is attracted by speaking order doctrine.

Click here to view full judgment.

SUDHIR KUMAR SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address