Kolkata Court June 2002 Judgments
Uttara-co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. the State of West Beng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT101(HC)
A. Lala, J.1. This writ petition is made by a Housing Co-operative Society challenging the order of the Registrar of the Co-operative Society, West Bengal dated 11th March, 2002 with other incidental prayers in connection thereto. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the order impugned is not sustainable for the following three reasons: (a) The Registrar has no jurisdiction to pass an order superseding the order of the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society as passed earlier on 16th January, 2002; (b) no opportunity of hearing is given which ought to be there before passing such order; (c) If the order is an administrative order the same cannot be given any retrospective effect;2. Mr. Anupam Chatterjee, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner contended that according to Section 137(2)(b) Registrar can call and examine the records of an enquiry held or inspection made under this Act or the proceedings of any person subordinate to him not vested to the powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Sukdeb Halder Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)CHN421
G.C. De, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Nadia in Sessions Trial No. 3 of June, 1988 arising out of Sessions case No. 9(3)85 and G.R. Case No. 145 of 1984. By the said judgment the learned Sessions Judge found the accused Sukdeb guilty under Section 498A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer r. i. for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer further r. i. for two months under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was passed in respect of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. G.R. Case No. 145 of 1984 was started on 8.5.1984 at 13.00 hours on the basis of a written complaint by one Nagendra Chandra Halder in which it was alleged that his daughter Lovely, was married with the accused Sukdeb Halder on 31st Ashar, 1390 B.S. was subjected to cruelty and harassment with a view to extract money from her father as a ...
Tag this Judgment!J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT106(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The application for vacating the order of attachment in connection with this application and the execution application are taken up for hearing as the preliminary point of maintainability of the application has been taken up by Mr. Roy Chowdhury. He submits that this Court has no jurisdiction as everything has taken place outside the territorial limit of this Court. Therefore, Mr. Chatterjee's client should have put in execution of this award before the appropriate Court where causes of action have arisen. 2. Mr. Chatterjee has drawn my attention to a fact that at the time of the arbitration proceedings an application was made in this Court and asked for continuation of the same Arbitrator who was appointed by the department, and was sought to be removed on the ground of retirement. That application was made in this Court and an appropriate order was passed by Justice Sujit Kumar Sinha (as His Lordship then was). Pursuant to the aforesaid order arbitration p...
Tag this Judgment!The Model Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT579(HC)
Amitava Lala, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment with incidental prayers for money-decree on account of unpaid rent and mesne profits/damages etc. The suit was instituted on 4th March, 1996. In the course of hearing of the suit, an application for amendment of the plaint was made in 1998 when the application was allowed by this Court on contest by incorporating the amended portion in the red ink alongwith a prayer for decree for Rs. 51,52,083.61 paise on account of difference in rent actually paid and as has been acknowledged to pay.2. The plaintiffs case is that the company is the owner of the fifth and sixth floors of the premises No. 40, Strand Road, Calcutta measuring an area of 31,608 square feet little more or less as prescribed under the Schedule 'A' of the plaint. By a registered Indenture of Lease dated 3rd June, 1967 in between the plaintiff by the pen of one of the Directors of the plaintiff company (hereinafter called as lessor/plaintiff) as per the resolution of the Board o...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Dutta Vs. Dr. Samarendra Nath Misra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)1CALLT209(HC)
D.K. Seth, J.1. This appeal is directed against Order No. 31 dated 12th December, 1997 passed in Misc. Case No. 1610 of 1995 by the learned Judge. City Civil Court Calcutta, Twelfth Bench. The said Misc. Case arose out of a proceeding under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :-2. Pursuant to an ex parte decree against one Archana Misra, the petitioner Bibhuti Bhusan Dutta was dispossessed in course of execution. According to the applicant, the ex parte decree against Smt. Archana Misra was obtained by the plaintiff Samarendra Nath Misra by practicing fraud and collusion upon the Court. Inasmuch as the applicant was the tenantin respect of the suit premises after having the talk of tenancy with Dr. Misra, who had pointed out that the receipts would be granted by his wife and accordingly, the receipts used to be granted by the wife of Dr. Misra being Smt. Archana Misra. The said Smt. Archana Misra had instituted a suit for evic...
Tag this Judgment!Debasis Dutta and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-2002
Reported in: (2003)2CALLT105(HC)
D.P. Sengupta, J. 1. This is an application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of a Sessions case being S.T. No. XVII/March/2002 under Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. 2. Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners at the very outset refers to the order dated 22.4.2002 passed by the learned trial Judge. From the said order it appears that on the said date four accused persons, out of 18 accuseds, filed petitions before the learned trial Judge through the Superintendent, Midnapore Central Correctional Home stating that they were not in a position to engage any lawyer to defend them. Such petition dated 4.4.2002 was placed before the learned trial Judge on 22.4.2002, when the case was fixed for recording evidence. However, on such petition filed by those four accused persons the learned trial Judge appointed Mr. G. Chow...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagawan Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT1(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. The petitioner was a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short CISF). Petitioner has questioned the order of dismissal dated August 10, 2000 by the disciplinary authority being annexure P-24. It was also confirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated August 7, 2001 being annexure P-26. As many as five charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969. In substance and effect, the imputation in the charges framed against thepetitioner is to the effect that the delinquent (petitioner) devised, designed and executed financial irregularity amounting to Rs. 70,871/- by which the charged officer deceived his superior officer thereby failing to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. Along with the articles of charge, list of documents by which the said charges was proposed to be sustained was furnished to the petitioner along with a list of witnesses by whom said charges were proposed to be established...
Tag this Judgment!Aswini Kumar Bhattacharya Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT635(HC),2002(3)CHN670
D.P. Sengupta, J.1. In the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 692 of 1981 arising out of Jagaddal P.S. case No. 21(2) 81 dated 11.2.81 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code now pending in the Cout of learned SDJM, Barrackpore.2. It appears from the ordersheet of the learned Magistrate's Court that on number of dates till 15.5.85 there was no report in the final form submitted by the Invistigating Officer. The learned Magistrate passed orders on those dates directing the Investigating Officer to expedite the investigation. From the order dated 21.11.85 it appears that the Investigating Officer had submitted a report stating that he had submitted the chargesheet in the case before the learned Public Prosecutor, 24 Parganas. As the offence was triable by the Special Court, the learned Magistrate waited for order from the learned Sessions Judge for allotment of Special Court on the subsequent dates. On 28.1.88 the learned M...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Geevarghese Mathews and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT500(HC),2002(3)CHN308
D.P. Sengupta, J. 1. Present revisional application is directed against an order dated 10.4.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah in a proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1521 of 1996. 2. It appears that in the aforesaid proceeding after examination of the prosecution witnesses filed a petition on 2.4.2002 praying for re-examination of the doctor, i.e. P.W.4. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 9.4.2002. On 10.4.2002 the petition filed by the prosecution praying for re-examination of the doctor (P.W.4) was taken up for hearing. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order allowed the prayer of the prosecution as he was of the view that the doctor should be recalled for the ends of justice for re-examination with reference to injury report. The next day, i.e. on 11.4.2002 was fixed by the learned Magistrate for examination of the doctor (P.W.4). 3. On 11.4.2002 the doctor (P.W.4) could not be examined as a pray...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmal Kanti Banerjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-2002
Reported in: (2002)3CALLT573(HC),2002(3)CHN421,I(2003)DMC678
D.P. Sengupta, J.1. Present revlsional application is directed against an order dated 15.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. XXII (7) of 2000 thereby rejecting the petitioners' application for discharge from the aforesaid case.2. Present petitioners are made accused in the aforesaid session trial to meet a charge under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners filed an application before the learned trial Judge praying for discharge from the said case. The contention of the petitioners before the learned trial Judge was that one Dr. Tapan Sarkar, attending physician of SSKM Hospital in his statement recorded by Police under Section 161 Cr.PC stated that the victim made a dying statement before him that while she (the victim) was preparing tea she caught fire and her husband tried to rescue her. But after the postmortem was held, the P.M. doctor was of the opinion that the deceased might have been assaulted be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »