Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Chaitnya Charan Das vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 16 May, 1995

Peerless General Finance And ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 24 December, 1998

It is further well settled that even where an authority is conferred with a power to exercise its discretion in a particular manner, such discretion has to be exercised bona fide and with a view to achieve the object laid down under the statute. No discretion is beyond the scope of judicial review. Reference in this connection may be made to Chaitnya Charan Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1995 Cal 336.
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

West Bengal Freedom Fighters' ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 August, 2004

Reliance was placed upon the case of Chaitnya Charan Das vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1995 Calcutta 336, wherein this Scheme was under consideration. In this case it was directed by the Calcutta High Court that an Advisory Committee be set up by the State Government for looking into the applications. It was further directed that once the Government was satisfied about the genuineness and bonafide of a claim then payment had to be made. It was further directed that such payment must be paid with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application. It was also noted that the State Government and the Central Government were aware that in many cases records were not available. It was held that in cases where the record was not available claim of the applicant supported by a personal knowledge certificate of a co- prisoner cannot be and should not be lightly disbelieved.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 16 - S N Variava - Full Document

Niranjan Mondal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 July, 2004

Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition (for short 'the affidavit') affirmed by the respondent No. 2, it was submitted that it shows a clear bias against the petitioner. Though the petitioner along with the application furnished necessary documents in support of his role during the Pre-Independence Movements yet in paragraph under 'Preliminary Objection' of the affidavit, it has been stated that "that as per the admission of the petitioner he did not participate in any freedom movement in pre-independence period." Referring to the Scheme submission was made that even detention under the orders of the competent authority should be considered as an imprisonment and the view taken by the respondent No. 2. while passing the order impugned that the cases were withdrawn, the persons were discharged and, therefore, after acquittal there was no suffering of the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of the Scheme. It was submitted that the respondent No. 1 was the ultimate authority to grant pension as held by the judgment in Chaitnya Charan Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors., and relying on the judgment of Kalipada Das v. Union of India, reported in 2004 WBLR (Cal) 256 it was submitted that as the petitioner has undergone detention for more than six months directions should be issued to grant pension.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Pal - Full Document
1   2 Next