Kolkata Court November 1988 Judgments
Narayan Chandra Bhunia Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1807
A.C. Sen Gupta, J.1. This appeal arises out of the Crl. Case No. 101 of 1980 instituted on the complaint of the present appellant against the respondent 1 under Section 420, I.P.C. filed before the learned Magistrate on 1-4-80 on the allegations that on 30-9-79 the appellant paid Rs. 45/- to the accused for the purpose of obtaining the certified copy of a registered document, that the accused opposite party 1 promised to secure the certified copy of the deed and make over the same to the complainant appellant (P.W.1) within a month from t hat date, that the accused did not keep his promise in spite of demands, that on 30-3-80 when again the complainant demanded the certified copy of the deed, the accused denied having received any money from the complainant.2. The defence was that the complainant did not pay any money to the accused and that he brought this case for the purpose of teaching a lesson to the accused because the accused refused to comply with the complainant's request for ...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Prosad Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ456Cal
Mahitosh Majumdar, J.1. This writ application is directed against the order of suspension, as contained in Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'D' to the petition. Again on June 29, 1988, when the writ application was moved, the respondents issued another order being Annexure 'X' to the application for further orders. The said order reads thus:The investigation into the charges to be levelled against you has not yet been completed. So the matter of your putting back to duty on expiry of 30 days from the date of suspension under Rule 135 has been thought over and it has been decided that since your activities were found to be prejudicial to the interest of the administration, you will, in public interest, continue to be under suspension till further orders. Mr. Chakraborti drew the attention of the Court to the order passed by the concerned authority as contained in Annexure 'F' to the application which is also quoted below:C/3215 Arjun Prosad Sharma of the CE Post presently under suspension is dire...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. P.N. Kakkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-1988
Reported in: 1989CriLJ1092
ORDERA.C. Sen Gupta, J.1. This Revisional application is directed against the order dated 4-5-83 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapore in C.R. Case No. 358/82 and 279/82. The said cases were filed against the accused persons on the allegation that they committed offences punishable under Section 72-A of the Mines Act, 1952.2. By that order, the learned Magistrate upheld the contention of the learned defence lawyer challenging the maintainability of the prosecution on the ground that the complainant an Inspector of Mines appointed under Section 5 of the Mines Act was not authorised by the Chief Inspector to institute such prosecution.3. The learned Magistrate quoted the Notification whereby the officers of the Mines Directorate appointed as Inspectors were authorised to institute prosecution for any offence under the Mines Act, 1952. The then Chief Inspector of Mines issued the said notification published in the Gazette of India on 8-7-80 in exercise of pow...
Tag this Judgment!Basdeo Shaw Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1988
Reported in: 1989(23)LC458(Calcutta),1989(41)ELT638(Cal)
Ajit K. Sengupta, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25th March; 1987 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal refusing to release the seized and confiscated gold to the petitioner upon payment of redemption fine.2. The brief facts leading to this application are that the petitioner carried on money lending business against deposits of gold and silver ornaments. The petitioner, it is alleged, is virtually an illiterate person and knows only to sign his name in Hindi. He is 87 years old. The petitioner possesses a money lending licence. According to the petitioner, he handed over some old ornaments belonging to the family and forfeited ornaments to one goldsmith, Panchamlal Shaw for melting and for preparing new ornaments out of the same in view of marriage of a boy and a girl in his family. Accordingly, he had made over 111 tollas 11 annas of gold to the said Panchamlal Shaw who me...
Tag this Judgment!State of West Bengal Vs. Bengal Builders
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Cal279,93CWN965
ORDERPrabir Kumar Majumdar, J. 1. This is an application for setting aside an award dated Feb. 10, 1988 made and published by Mr. P.C.. Majumdar, the Sole Arbitrator. There is also a prayer for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in making this application for setting aside the award. 2. The learned arbitrator made an award for a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- in favour of the respondent, Bengal Builders. The learned arbitrator also made an award for interest at 9% per annum on the said sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- for the period from the date of entering upon the reference by the learned arbitrator, i.e. April 27, 1987, till the date of payment or decree by the competent court, whichever is earlier. The learned arbitrator made the said award for Rs. 5,05,000/- in full and final settlement of all the claims and counter-claims of the parties, which had been referred to the arbitrator. 3. The material portion of the impugned award is as follows : -- 'FIRSTLY That I award and direc...
Tag this Judgment!Kamrul Huda Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)1CALLT252(HC)
Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J.1. The appellant, Kamrul Huda has preferred the instant appeal against an Order of conviction passed by Shri P. K. Sengupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Islampore, Dist. West Dinajpur in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1987 convicting him under Section 364 IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a further conviction under Section 302 IPC sentencing him to imprisonment for life, both the sentence being directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution story as given out in the FIR lodged on September 7, 1979 at 1 P.M. gives out inter alia that Ramena Khatoon, aged about 16 years along with her younger sister Marzina Khatoon aged about 10 years proceeded towards the house of their relatives Abbas Ali of Lodhan on Tuesday, the 4th September, 1979 at noon. At about 2 P.M. when they reached beneath a mango tree in the northern side of Godarhat, the present accused along with another youngman came over there and forcibly caught hold of Ramena K...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›