Kolkata Court April 1987 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.
Sm. Mamata Ghosh Vs. United Industrial Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Cal280,[1990]69CompCas663(Cal)
Sukumar Chakravarty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th April, 1983, passed by Shri G. Banerji, the learned Subordinate Judge. 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 30 of 1977, rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the defendant No. 4 who is the appellant here, in the said Title Suit for restraining the defendant No. 3 from disposing of his personal properties till the disposal of the aforesaid suit. 2. Plaintiff United Industrial Bank Ltd. filed the aforesaid title suil against the defendants 1 to 5 praying for a declaration that the land and properties at 10, Ballygunge Station Road and 23/B, Kankulia Road, Calcutta, the documents of title whereof were deposited with the plaintiff as security against the loan taken by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from the plaintiff, and fully described in Schedule 'D' to the plaint stood charged in favour of the plaintiff for the repayment of the sum of Rs. 4,92,868.19 mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint ...
Ruby Banerjee Vs. Mechanics Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal252,92CWN152
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. On being sued for ejectment on the ground of default and also other grounds, the tenant-petitioner filed an application under Section 17(2) and (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act disputing her liability to pay any rent on the ground that it was agreed by the landlord-opposite party that the cost of repairs made by her in respect of the suit-premises would be adjusted towards the rent and that on such adjustment no amount of rent would be due from or payable by her. The application having been rejected by the 'trial Court, the tenant has moved this Court in revision and we have heard the learned Counsel appearing both for and against the revision at great length. As the case at hand involves a proper construction of the provisions of Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, the same are reproduced hereinbelow :'(2) If in any suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tena...
Adding Machines (India) Private Limited Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1987
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas588(Cal),(1987)65CTR(Cal)250,[1987]167ITR171(Cal)
Amal Kumar Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioner in these two rules which is a private limited company is sought to be prosecuted in two cases for an offence under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is punishable wi,th imprisonment and fine. In these rules seeking to quash the proceedings, it has been contended that the prosecution of the company for such an offence is incompetent because no sentence of imprisonment can be imposed on it. This ground was canvassed before the learned Magistrate in both the cases but as it did not find favour with him, the petitioner has come up in revision.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that a company being a juristic or an artificial person cannot be committed to prison and,therefore, no prosecution can be started against it because even in the case of conviction, sentence in the way indicated in Section 276B of the Income-tax Act could not be passed by the court. He has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in D...
In Re: Rakhan Ojha Alias Rakhal Chandra Ojha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ278
ORDER1. On a complaint filed by the petitioner the twelve accused/opposite parties were summoned by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Contain to stand trial under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code. In due course the case was committed to the Court of Session and the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore made over the case to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Contai for trial. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore stating that he had engaged a senior Advocate of the Midnapore District Bar to conduct the case on his behalf but due to his old age he was unable to go to Contai to conduct the case and accordingly praying for transfer of the case from the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Contai to any competent Court at Midnapore to enable the petitioner to avail of the services of the Advocate engaged by him. As the learned Sessions Judge rejected his application the petitioner has filed this applica...
Chitra Sengupta Vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal98,92CWN54
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. Thewife-appellant, who has appealed against a decree of divorce passed against her, has filed this application for maintenance pendente lite and cost of litigation under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, as well as for an order of temporary injunction restraining the husband-respondent from marrying again during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner should have filed two separate applications for these two reliefs; but that being a matter of mere form and procedure, if she can make out her case for both the reliefs, the same or any of them should not be denied to her on the ground that she has failed to file two separate sets of paper.2. In opposing the application so far it relates to payment of maintenance pendente lite and cost of litigation, the learned Counsel for the husband-respondent has firstly con tended that the wife-appellant did not file any such application in the trial Court and that is a fact which must be taken into consideration against her...
Pannalal Paik Vs. Sm. Indu Bala Halder
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal323
Sukumar Chakravarty, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. Dec. 3, 1982, passed by Shri S.R. Bhowmik the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court, Alipore in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 672 of 1981, confirming the order Dt. Nov. 14, 1981, passed by Shri A. C. Acharya, Subordinate Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Miscellaneous Case No. 28 of 1979 under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. In pursuance of the decree of dismissal of Title Suit No. 47 of 1972 instituted by the deity, Shri Radhakrishna Jew Thakur represented by the Sebait Indubala Halder as the plaintiff against Pannalal Paik as the principal defendant and others as the pro forma defendants, with costs against the principal defendant and without costs against the rest, the decree of costs obtained by the principal defendant was put into execution in Title Execution Case No. 28 of 1978 seeking to realise the decretal costs by attachment and sale of the personal property of Indubala Ha...
Narayan Chandra Dey Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ387
A.C. Sen Gupta, J.1. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 302, I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Hooghly in the Sessions Trial Case No. 57 of 1983 of that Court on the finding that the appellant murdered his youngest son aged about 2 1/2 years on 7-8-82.2. The learned Sessions Judge after discussing the circumstances of this case on the basis of which he passed the order of conviction held that though motive for the murder could not be proved by the prosecution, there could be only one conclusion from the circumstances that the appellant caused the death of his baby Nayan by drowning him in the Ganges and that the plea of insanity having not been proved the appellant was liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section 302, I.P.C.3. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the accused has preferred the present appeal.4. The point for consideration is...
Kartick Chandra Mullick Vs. Parshottam Das Goel and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Cal247,92CWN63
Sankari Prasad Das Ghosh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the passing of a final decree in a suit for foreclosure. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, against the appellant and one Sri R. K. Mitra, appointed as Receiver in Partition and Administration Suit No. 2729 of 1968 pending in this Court, for passing of a preliminary decree for foreclosure under Order 34, Rule 2 of the Civil P. C. on the allegation that by a registered deed of mortgage by way of conditional sale dt. 6-6-68, the appellant (defendant No. 1) for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 4,000/- ostensibly sold his undivided 1/9th share in premises No. 155-B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta, (hereinafter called 'the suit-property') to the plaintiff on condition that in default of payment of the principal sum of Rs. 4,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and all interest and expenses incurred by the plaintiff in respect of his claim under the deed of mortgage on or befo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›