Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.53 seconds)

Farida Bibi vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 September, 2016

Secondly, it has been clearly stated in the decision mentioned herein above (Gopal Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.) that issuance of notice for convening such meeting itself indicates the satisfaction of the prescribed authority as regards acceptability of such motion. In that view of this case, I do not find any illegality in requisitioning such meeting by the prescribed authority in terms of the notice dated 25th August, 2014 of respondent no. 10 to 12 and 15 to 22. Mere non-mentioning of political identity in the notice will not render the entire notice illegal. More so, when the prescribed authority has verified the political identity of the requitionist before convening such meeting.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jahir Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 16 December, 2016

This Court is also ad idem with the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Re: Gopal Kumar Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2015 (1) CHN (CAL) 445 on the point that the Prescribed Authority need not record a satisfaction elaborately for summoning a meeting to discuss the no-confidence requisition since the issuance of the notice itself indicates such satisfaction.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - S Talukdar - Full Document

Golapi Bauri vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 March, 2016

In a batch of writ petitions (Gopal Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) a Division Bench of this Court on 18th 2 December, 2014 held that subjective satisfaction of the prescribed authority need not be recorded at the time of calling the meeting. It endorsed the view of Mr. Justice Somadder in another case that the issuance of the notice by itself signifies satisfaction of the prescribed authority.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - I P Mukerji - Full Document
1