Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing Chainbanu Khatun & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 September, 2009

Radhakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2013

9. The petitioner had raised two specific conditions. One is that the fourth respondent had no locus standi to file the original petition as he is not a person residing in the said ward. W.P.C.No.30517/2013 4 Secondly, disqualification under Section 35(1)(p) of the Act arises only in instances where there is failure to convene the meeting. When it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had convened the meeting, but it could not be conducted for want of quorum, there is no disqualification. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Chainbanu Khatun and others v. State of West Bengal and others [2010 KHC 6407] wherein it is held that, the words 'convene and hold' cannot be given identical meaning, while interpreting different provisions of the West Bengal Municipalities (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1995.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Shaffique - Full Document

(Sankar Mandal vs State Of West Bengal And Others) on 26 April, 2017

A distinction has to be drawn between the words "convene" and "hold" and such distinction is real and apparent. The expression used in the said Rule is convening of the meeting and not holding of the meeting. The reference in this regard can be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Chainbanu Khatun & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2009 (4) Calcutta High Court Notes 501, wherein it is held that the word "convene" cannot be substituted by the word "hold", as both the words conveyed definite and different intentions. It is was further noticed therein that those words are used in the said Rules at different places and in such perspective it is held that once the legislatures have used different words at different places in the same statute, it must convey a different meaning and the intentions and synonimity should be avoided while interpreting the same. Much emphasis is made on a expression "receipt of such requisition" appearing in clause (i) of Rule 9(3)(b) of the said Rules that it connotes the requisition to be served directly to the Chairman for the purpose of commencement of the time period enshrined therein.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - H Tandon - Full Document

Abhilash vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 22 December, 2009

39. Learned Senior Counsel further relied on Roopasena Khatun v. State of West Bengal [AIR 2011 SC 2256] to contend that the appellant cannot be held responsible for the death of Muthammal. It has come out through the medical evidence and other reliable evidence that Muthammal was gagged by thrusting a bath towel into her mouth. She died due to gagging is the unquestionable opinion of PW-12. That remains unshaken also. In Roopasena's case, the facts and circumstances are entirely different and therefore, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in those factual settings cannot be applied to this case.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - P R Menon - Full Document
1