Kolkata Appellate Court January 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sk. Jalal Vs. the State of West Bengal and Anrs
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1) Sk. Saheb Ali and Sk. Kutubuddin the opposite party no. 1 and 2, respectively, were found not guilty to the charge under Section 376 IPC by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 1, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 305 of 2006 and were acquitted therefrom. Sk. Jalal, father of the victim girl Jahanara Khatoon has challenged the legality, validity and correctness of the order of acquittal of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 in this revision application.2) The factual aspect is stated below in short :3) On 13.12.2004, Jahanara Khatoon daughter of Sk. Jalal was found missing since 7 P.M. A missing diary being no. GDE no. 1431 darted 14.12.2004, was noted by the Panchla Police station to that effect. Sk. Jalal and others made thorough searching for Jahanara and on 14.12.2004 one Sk. Hara and Sk. Liakat of village Nabghara brought Jahanara and opposite party no. 2 Sk. Saheb Ali back to their village and disclosed that they were caught when moving in the villag...
Yashdeep Trexim Vs. Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Ambit and coverage of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereafter the SICA) do not extend to a foreign company carrying on business in this country, is the point vehemently argued by learned counsel for each of the petitioners and some of the respondents herein while assailing the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereafter the BIFR) sanctioning a scheme for revival of Baranagore Jute Company PLC (hereafter BJC), a company incorporated in England under the laws of that country and having its registered office in London. Per contra, each of the learned counsel for those respondents who have urged the Court not to entertain the writ petitions have strongly contended that on proper interpretation of SICA, it ought to be held that the ambit and coverage of SICA extends to embrace a foreign company, a fortiorari, BJC. 2. The writ proceedings presently under c...
Suresh Poddar and Another Vs. the State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. The present two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15th September, 1988 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan in Sessions Trial Case No. 22 of 1988 corresponding to Sessions Case No.144 of 1987 sentencing the appellants, namely, Suresh Poddar and Santi Bauri to suffer R.I for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- I.D to suffer R.I for 1 year and to suffer R.I for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.500 and in default to suffer R.I for 3 months respectively for the offence under Section 376 IPC and 376/114 IPC respectively. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 28th April 1984 at about 3 PM the victim girl Fulmani Mandi (P.W-1) boarded a bus at Burdwan for going to Memari and when the bus reached Shaktigarh, victim learnt that the bus would not go to Memari as the same was meant for Barsul and, as such, she got down from the bus at Shaktigarh. In the meantime appellant Suresh found the victim girl standing at Shaktigarh bus stan...
Subhas Sardar. Vs. the State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Burdwan in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1992 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 330 of 1990 sentencing the appellant to suffer R.I. for 10 years under Section 307 I.P.C. and to suffer R.I. for one year under Section 451 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Kalyani Biswas lodged complaint with O.C. Ketugram P.S. alleging that on 8th Agrahayan, 1392 at about 8.00 P.M. she and her sister Kanika Biswas were lying in the first floor after dinner. Chandi Majhi was in the ground floor. At about 10.00 P.M. her sister Kanika Biswas came downstairs to attend natures call. Sometime thereafter Kanika raised alarm and on hearing her shouts, the informant came downstairs with light and found that Chandi Majhi also woke up. She found that Kanika was lying in the courtyard with bleeding injuries and Subhas Sardar with a knife in his hand was going away after o...
Shri Paresh Nath Majumder Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distributi ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-24-2011
1. The petitioner, employed by the then West Bengal State Electricity Board in 1962, was holding the post of Assistant Manager (F&A;) of the Board on April 19, 2003 when a charge-sheet of that date (at p.51) was issued by his disciplinary authority. He was to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on April 30, 2003. During pendency of the proceedings initiated by the charge-sheet dated April 19, 2003 the disciplinary authority issued another charge-sheet dated April 28, 2003 (at p.56). 2. One of the allegations against him was that he did not disclose to the authority concerned that in a tender process his son was one of the participants. Questioning the validity of the proceedings and denying that he committed any misconduct in any manner, he participated in the proceedings and the enquiry officer submitted reports concluding that some of the charges were proved. After giving him opportunity of submitting representations to the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary a...
Arun Sen. Vs. Puspa Rani Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 and is directed against the order dated March 30, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Third Court, Sealdah in Title Appeal No.52 of 2004 thereby rejecting the show cause to accept the written statement to be filed by the plaintiff in the counterclaim. The short fact is that the petitioner instituted a suit being Title Suit No.685 of 1998 for declaration and injunction in respect of a flat mentioned in schedule A to the plaint claiming that he has every right to enjoy all amenities including installation of electric meter in the common electric meter box under the staircase of the building, as described in schedule B to the plaint and for other reliefs. In that suit, the defendant no.3 contested by filing a written statement with the counterclaim and copy of the counter claim was served upon the plaintiff on May 28, 1999. But the plaintiff did not file any counter-claim thro...
Sri Shiba Brata Kabiraj Vs. Sri Sujit Kumar Nandy
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 31st July, 2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Title Appeal No.1 of 1997. By said impugned judgment and decree learned Lower Appellate Court set aside judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1996 passed by learned Munsif, Additional Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.107 of 1983.2. The respondent plaintiffs case, in short, is that defendant Shiba Brata Kabiraj was a tenant under him in the ground floor of premises No.3/B Shyamlal Street in respect of one room partitioned into two rooms and common latrine at a rental of Rs.110/- per month according to English Calendar month. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent since January, 1975. Defendant along with his youngest brother started to occupy the suit premises initially. Later on another brother came to reside there and thereafter they inducted some other persons as boarders for running a mess in the suit premises. The defendant converted mode of user ...
Barid Baran Laha and ors. Vs. Manjuri Ghoshal (Claiming as Laha)
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2008 and 5th September, 2008 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2008 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated 13th December, 2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 7th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.38 of 2003.2. The appellant/plaintiffs case, in short, is that the suit property was purchased property of one Pijush Kanti Laha. He died on 8.10.94 leaving behind his father Balai Chandra Laha as his sole legal heir. After his death Balai Chandra Laha became the owner of the property and continued to possess the same. Balai Chandra Laha died on 13.12.95 leaving behind the present plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Since then present plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and are realizing rent from the tenant.3. Balai Chandra Laha during his life time filed a suit being Title Suit No.7 of 1995 in the Court o...
Sushanta Roy. Vs. Shyamal Kanti Bandopadhyay and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated December 17, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.259 of 2007 thereby allowing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant no.1. By the said order, the plaintiff was directed to restore the possession of the A schedule property to the defendant no.1.2. The plaintiff / petitioner herein instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.259 of 2007 for permanent injunction praying for a decree for restraining the defendant no.1 from dispossessing and / or disturbing the peaceful physical possession of the plaintiff in the A schedule property, as described in the schedule to the plaint. At the time of filing the suit, the petitioner prayed for temporary injunction. He also prayed for ad interim injunction which was refused by the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.88 of 2007 and the lower appellate Cour...
Sukarjan Bibi. Vs. Nur Mohammad and anr
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.20 dated May 16, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court, Barasat in Title Suit No.40 of 2007 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.40 of 2007 for partition and permanent injunction against the defendants/opposite parties. The defendants/opposite parties are contesting the suit. In that suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint and upon hearing both the sides on that application, the learned Trial Judge rejected the petition for amendment of the plaint. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the petitioner filed the said suit for partition and permanent injunction on March 28, 2007. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »