Kolkata Court December 2004 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.
Ramendra Nath Sen Vs. Chitta Ranjan Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT416(HC)
S.K. Gupta, J.1. The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, second Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1999 whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998 passed by learned civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 218 of 1996 was reversed. The case of the appellant/defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 218 of 1996 against him praying for his eviction from the suit premises which he is occupying as a tenant under the plaintiff. Plaint case reveals that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and the defendant is a monthly tenant under him at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- payable according to English calendar month. It is the case of the plaintiff that he requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation as the plaintiff is suffering from extreme dearth of accommodation. It has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiff's family consi...
Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. State of West Bengal a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)2CALLT141(HC)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. These two appeals of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) have been preferred against the order dated 7th February 2001 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 11615 of 1998 and W.P. No. 11616(W) of 1998 arising out of L.R.A. Case No. 541 of 1993(V) and 487 of 1993 (V) both dated 26th June, 1996. Since the grounds of challenge were identical, the two writ petitions were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment. The two appeals, therefore, were also heard together. We propose to dispose of the same by a common judgment.The Facts:2. The facts in brief are summarised thus. For the benefit of the CMDA, the lands were acquired by the State Government under the provisions of West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (1948 Act). On a reference under Section 8 of the 1948 Act against the award passed under Section 7 thereof, no notice of the reference, admittedly, was served upon the appellant (CMDA), the requiring ...
Amar Singh Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN79
Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. The present application under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 21.2.1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands at Port Blair under Sections 399 and 401 of the Cr. PC in Criminal Revision Case No. 13 of 1988 setting aside the order No. 20 dated 10.8.1988 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Port Blair discharging accused/petitioner in G.R. Case Nos. 491/259 of 1988.2. The facts and circumstances leading to the instant application are as follows:The Assistant Secretary (Vigilance) of the Andaman & Nicobar Administration sent a confidential letter to the I. G. of Police, A & N Islands, Port Blair alleging malpractices adopted by the petitioner in the matter of procuring and disposal of a scooter. The background of such allegation was that against an allotment order BCp060084 dated 20.3.79 one Sri Suresh B. Bijalani of Block No. 42/9, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was allotted with o...
Subhendu Kr. Dutta Vs. Dipankar Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Cal143
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. The matter was taken up for hearing on a number of days but on none of those days respondents ever appeared. As such, this Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and decided the matter accordingly. 2. This appeal has been filed impugning the Judgment and decree vide Order No. 44, dated 21st September, 1992 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in T. S. No. 14 of 1986. By the said order the learned Judge was pleased to hold that the suit is not maintainable in law in view of the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The suit was for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/ appellant against Pranab Kumar Ghosh, Prabir Kumar Ghosh, Partha Pratim Ghosh and Vivekananda Mission Ashram. All these parties were made defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and one Prithwish Kumar Sen was made th...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ram Sunder Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN361
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Union of India & Others impugning a judgment and order dated 7th August, 1997 passed by a learned Judge of the Writ Court. By the said judgment and order under appeal, the learned Judge was pleased to set aside the order of discharge passed against the petitioner/respondent. The learned Judge was pleased to set aside the order of discharge mainly on the grounds that Principles of Natural Justice have not been followed in the instant case while passing the order of discharge. The learned Judge was pleased to hold that since the words 'dismissal' or 'termination' will have the same effect it has a difference in terminology only. Therefore, while passing the order of discharge, the authority should have given the petitioner a sufficient opportunity to defend himself and that not having been done, the order of discharge cannot be sustained. The learned Judge also held that considering the socio-economic conditions of the day, the Court...
Kamal Sengupta and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN116
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Shri Kamal Sengupta and Shri Narayan Chandra Ghosh, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P.S.T. No. 1 of 2002, filed a writ application, being W. P. No. 1547 of 1995, before this Court praying, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the State Government authorities to allow the writ petitioners the benefit of Scale Nos. 19 and 21 under the West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1990 after cancellation of the decision of the respondent authorities communicated under Memo No. 229/F dated 6th January, 1995, whereunder the petitioners were specifically excluded from the Career Advancement Scheme as recommended by the Third Pay Commission on account of their better promotional avenues and/or opportunities. With the formation of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and was renumbered as T.A. No. 826 of 1996.2. In course of time the matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Tribunal and was dismissed on 25th Feb...
Dipti Pal and anr. Vs. Dibyendu Sekhar Lahiri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN366
Joytosh Banerjee, J.1. The instant hearing arises out of an application under Sections 397, 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Shortly put, the case of the petitioners are that they run a business of production of Bengali Films and Television Serials for a long period of 22 years. The O. P. No. 1 runs a small audio cassette company. When the complainant/O. P. came to know about the launching of a new venture in the name of 'Tok Jhal Misti' a 500 episode Bengali mega serial to be made by the petitioners, he approached the petitioners to procure the rights of release of audio cassettes on usual business terms. It was then agreed by the parties to release the audio cassettes of the said Bengali serial on the basis of payment of royalty by O.Ps. in proportion to the sale of such audio cassettes. A contract was entered upon by the parties to the proceeding on 10.3.2000, for the aforesaid purpose. The O. P. paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance against royalty. It...
Subhendu Kr. Dutta Vs. Dipankar Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-2004
Reported in: [2005]148TAXMAN497(Cal)
ORDERAsok Kumar Ganguly, J. The matter was taken up for hearing on a number of days but on none of those days respondents ever appeared. As such, this court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and decided the matter accordingly.2. This appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and decree vide order No. 44, dated 21-9-1992 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore in T.S. No. 14 of 1986. By the said order the learned Judge was pleased to hold that the suit is not maintainable in law in view of the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The suit was for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant against Pranab Kumar Ghosh, Prabir Kumar Ghosh, Partha Pratim Ghosh and Vivekananda Mission Ashram. All these parties were made defendant Nos. 1, 2,3 and 4 and one Prithwish Kumar Sen was made the proforma...
Bablu Mahanto Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN305
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of a convicted person charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed against order dated 27th February, 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Siliguri, District-Darjeeling in Sessions Case No. 2(S) of 1996 (Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1996) thereby holding the appellant guilty and sentencing him to life imprisonment.2. The prosecution case is based on FIR dated 21th September, 1995 lodged by the father of the victim, a girl studying in Class-VIII, who had suffered multiples stabs by knife on that day at about 1:30 p.m. while she was coming back from school along with her two classmates. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the accused, while the victim was coming from school, started pulling her hand which she opposed and suddenly, the accused bought out a knife and made repeated assaults on her body. As a result, the victim was taken to the local hospital in a seriously injured condit...
Nuzrul Sk. @ Nazrul Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN557
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two appeals were heard analogously as those were preferred against a common judgement passed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. By the said judgement, Sk. Nazrul, the appellant of the C.R.A No. 245 of 1985, was found guilty of the charges under Sections 302/34, 148 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. For committing offence under Sections 302/34 of the Code, he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. However, no separate sentence was imposed upon him for committing the offences under the other Sections of the Code, mentioned above.3. C.R.A No 219 of 1985 has been filed by other thirteen accused persons who have all been found guilty under Sections 148 and 324/34 of the Code. For committing offence under Section 148 of the Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and for the crime under Sections 324/34, rigorous imprisonment of one year has been ordered. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.4...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »