Kolkata Court July 1996 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.
Arunava Dasgupta Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC387
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the order dated 7.9.1995 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial Case No. 1(1) of 1995. 2. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR under Sections 306/498A, IPC was lodged against him by one Debasish Roy on 26.5.1991 which was treated as FIR giving rise to Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 296 dated 27.5.1991 which was investigated by the O.C., Baisnabghata P.S. at the first instance and thereafter by CID, West Bengal. The allegation contained in the FIR are of ill-treatment by the petitioner on his wife and subsequent death of petitioner's wife due to bum injuries alleged to have been caused by bursting of a stove.3. The investigation ended in a charge sheet being No. 32 dated 1.3.1993 and after congnizance was taken by the Sub-Rivisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimatel...
Sukhdev Kaur (Grewal) Vs. Ravinder Singh Grewal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: II(1997)DMC69
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated the 22nd February, 1991 in Matrimonial Suit No. 6/1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, granting decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in favour of the petitioner- husband and against the wife on the ground of cruelty of the wife. The husband who is respondent herein filed the suit for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The parties are Sikh by religion and are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. They were married according to Sikh rites and ceremonies on or about 23rd January, 1970 at 2/3A, Panditiya Road, Calcutta-29. Their marriage was consummated and two sons were born in that wedlock, - one on 28th May, 1972 and the other on 17th September, 1974. Both the sons however have, by now, crossed their minority and have attained majority. At the time of the marriage the petitioner was in service in the Security Force as an Assistan...
Sri Arunava Dasgupta Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT388(HC)
Asish Baran Mukherjee, J.1. This Is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for setting aside the order dated 7.9.95 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge 4th Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial Case No. 1(1) of 1995.2. The case of the petitioner is that an FIR under Section 306/498A IPC was lodged against him by one Dcbasish Roy on 26.5.91 which was treated as FIR giving rise to Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 296 dated 27.5.91 which was investigated by the O.C., Baisnabghata P.S. at the first instance and thereafter by C1D West Bengal. The allegation contained in the FIR are of Ill-treatment by the petitioner on his wife and subsequent death of petitioner's wife due to burn injuries alleged to have been caused by bursting of a stove.3. The investigation ended in a charge sheet being No. 32 dated 1.3.93 and after cognizance was taken by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately transferred...
Anil Kumar Panda Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal125
ORDERBhagabati Bati Prosad Banerjee, J .72'..... (iv) that copies of the time-table of the stage carriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shall be exhibited on the vehicles and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area;.....'2. Clause (xxii) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 72 of the said Act provides the power of the Transport Authority to vary the conditions of the permit and that it can only be done after giving notice of not less than one month and by giving notice of one month, the transport authority may vary the conditions of the permit or attach to the permit further conditions. 3. So far as the provisions of the said Act is concerned there is no other provision for fixation or alteration of time-tables. 4. Admittedly, in the instant case, for change of the time-table and/or against the alteration of the time-table, the parties have moved this Court, obtained the directions and certain actions have been taken by the Regional Transport Authority, but while ...
Union of India (Uoi) Owing Calcutta Telephones Vs. Bikaner Properties ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT368(HC)
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. This Revisional application by the Defendant-Petitioner is directed against the order dated 24th June, 1992 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1384 of 1995 before him, for the reasons stated and on the grounds made out therein.2. The plaintiff-Opposite Party had filed the relevant Suit before the Court below in view of alleged excessive telephone Bills in respect of their Telephone, as pleaded in the Plaint. The Defendant-petitioner had thereafter filed an application before the Court below under Section 7B(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as said Act) contending that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the relevant Suit in view of the provisions contained therein. The learned Judge upon hearing the submissions of both sides had over-ruled the contention of the Defendant-Petitioner and had rejected their said application. The Defendant-Petitioner has thus moved this Co...
Sri Satyendra Nath Roy (Deceased) Substituted by Smt. Aruna Roy and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT467(HC)
Arun Kumar Dutta, J.1. This second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29th March, 1993 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 170 of 1989 before him, affirming the agreement and Decree dated 31st July, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, Additional Court at Sealdah, in Title Suit No. 132 of 1986 before him on a grounds made out in the Memorandum of Appeal.2. The relevant Suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent Chhabi Rani Mundra for eviction of the Defendant-Appellant, Satyendra Nath Roy, since deceased, who has been substituted by his legal heirs and representatives on his demise during the pendency of this Appeal, from the suit premises, as described and detailed in the Schedule to the Plaint, on ground of reasonable requirement, amongst others. It is contended by the Plaintiff-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) that she became the owner of the suit premises under a Deed of Settlement dated 8th October, 1958 e...
Nirmal Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Dulal Chandra Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT360(HC)
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. In this revislonal application, the Judgment debtor/ petitioner question the validity of the orders being order Nos. 32 and 33 dated 10th February, 1995 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court at Baruipur, in miscellaneous. Case No. 92 of 1993, which arose out of title execution case No, 22 of 1993. By order No. 32 dated 10th February, 1995 the Executing Court rejected the objection filed by the judgment debtor/petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order No. 33 is an order consequential to order No. 32 dated 10th February, 1995. Both these two orders, therefore, are under challenge in this revisional application.2. The decree holder/opposite party No, 1 along with others instituted a suit for injunction restraining the Judgment debtor/petitioner from drawing overhead electric line over the private pathway of the decree holders in the second court of the Munsif at Baruipur in the year 1993, upon the allegations that the suit land being the...
Smt. Kalpana Khatwani Vs. Wealth Tax Officer.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Cal)373
ORDERR. V. EASWAR, J. M. :In this appeal by the assessee, a non-resident, we are concerned with the valuation of the assessees half share in a flat at No. 2, 8th floor, Le-Papeyol Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mount Marry Road, Bandra (West), Bombay - 50. The flat was purchased on 8th Aug., 1990, by the assessee and her husband Mahesh K. Khatwani, who held the other half share in the flat for a price of Rs. 56 lakhs. In the return for the asst. yr. 1991-92, for the valuation dt. 31st March, 1991, the assessee returned the value of her share in the flat at Rs. 63,000 on the basis of a valuation report showing the value of the entire flat, at Rs. 1.26 lakhs. From the copy of the sale-deed filed by the assessee the WTO found that the cost of the flat was Rs. 56 lakhs and the assessees share therein came to Rs. 28 lakhs. He further observed that the assessee did not reside in the flat since it was purchased as she was a non-resident. He accordingly adopted the value of the assessees h...
Krishna Chowdhury and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal38
ORDERSatyabrata Sinha 1. The only question which has been addressed to us and requires our decision is as to whether the provision of Sections 95(5) and 95(6) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is mandatory or directory.2. In view of a pure question of law raised in this appeal, it is not necessary to consider the fact of the matter in details, suffice it to say that dispute having been raised by the respondent Nos.6 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as the added respondents) as regards the legality or validity of an annual general meeting held for the purpose of election of office bearers in terms of Sec. 45 of the said Act, the same was referred by the respondent No. 9 to the respondent No. 3 as an Arbitrator. Reference was made on 30-12-94. The respondent No. 3 passed an Award on 23-11-95 which is contained in Annexure 'B' to the writ application. The writ petitioners/ appellants who were 8 in number and members of Baharal Fishermen C...
Tapan Kumar Chakraborty Vs. Smt. Jyotsna Chakraborty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal134
ORDERGitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Murshida-bad in Matrimonial Suit No.67 of 1982 by which the learned trial court dismissed the matrimonial suit which was filed by the appellant husband against the respondent wife praying for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. Admittedly the parties were married according to Hindu rites on the 6th Falgun 1385 B.S. corresponding to Feb. 1979. Admittedly a daughter was born to the parties. The husband prayed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The case of the appellant husband is that the respondent wife always used to quarrel with the husband and his parents without any just reason and she also used to insist upon the petitioner tolive separately from his family which the petitioner did not agree. It is the contention of the husband that on 12th May, 1980 the wife left the ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »