Kolkata Court July 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.
Panjabi @ Susanta Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN648
Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. This instant appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, under the N.D.P.S. Act, 6th Court, Barasat in connection with the Case being No. 79 of 2000.2. The incident leading to the institution of the case took place on 7.9.2000. On that date round about 12.10 hrs. the then I.C. of Barasat P.S. received an information over the phone that a person called Punjabi Mondal was selling heroin at Jagdighata, Kajipara. The matter was reported to S.D.O. & S.D.P.O., Barasat. Acting on the tip-off and the information so received over the phone, I.C, Barasat headed for the place of occurrence with some other police personnel. They reached Jagdighata, Kajipara within half an hour. There they found a tall person selling articles to another one. Seeing the police personnel approaching, the person purchasing the article took to his heeds, However, the person selling the articles was cornered by the police personnel. He w...
Kamala Kant Jha Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CHN54,2005(2)ESC1187
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. Earlier a dispute was raised in the process of refixation of the scales of pay of the petitioner in course of implementation of the ROPA Rules, 1990. The petitioner claimed that in terms of the ROPA Rules, 1990, his pay fixation should have been made at Rs. 2,120/- in the scale of Rs. 1780-3780/-, but the respondent authorities wrongly fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 1975/- in the scale of Rs. 1780-3750/-.2. Accordingly, the petitioner challenged the said erroneous pay fixation of the petitioner by filing a writ petition being C. O. No. 709(W) of 1993 earlier in this Court.3. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), South 24-Parganas by an Office Memo being No. 115 dated 12.3.1997 being Annexure 'P-3' to this writ petition, modified the earlier pay fixation of the petitioner and revised the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 2,120/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 1780-3780/- with effect from 1st Ap...
Harendra Nath Halder and ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC3,2006ACJ975
Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 12.4.2001, passed in M.A.C. Case No. 125 of 2000, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 4th Court of Additional District Judge at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.2. The above claim case arose out of an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.3. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid claim case are that on 10.10.1998, when the victim was sitting on the pillion and her husband riding a motor cycle, the offending vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction in a very rash and negligent manner knocked them down, as a result, both the victim and her husband were seriously injured and ultimately the victim succumbed to her injuries. The above claim petition was filed by the husband and three children of the couple.4. The Claims Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs 50,000 in favour of the claimants-appellants which has been challenged in this appe...
industrial Development Bank of Vs. Antartica Ltd. and ors.
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: III(2006)BC61
1. This appeal has been preferred from an order dated 30th May, 2003, made by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (I), Kolkata, hereinafter referred to as "the DRT", The principal grievance of the appellants, as appeared from the Memorandum of Appeal, was that the learned Presiding Officer while disposing of the respondents' interlocutory application had wrongfully and illegally dismissed the claim of the appellants, even before the filing of any written statement by the respondents, and in the absence of any evidence in support of the contentions of the parties. According to the respondents, however, it was abundantly clear from the documents that the appellants had admitted having received their entire dues and that the DRT in exercise of its powers and jurisdiction had rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants. The hearing of the appeal was concluded and judgment was reserved. Thereafter, Advocate on behalf of the respondent No. 3 mentioned the matter, upon n...
D.C. Ghose and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-2004
Reported in: III(2006)BC92
1. This appeal has been preferred from an order dated 15th December, 2003 made by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Kolkata hereinafter referred to as "the DRT'. The appellants were aggrieved that the DRT had chosen to ignore the concluded oral agreement between the parties, and had wrongfully directed the issuance of a certificate in favour of the Bank. The Bank's contention was that no oral agreement was ever concluded between the parties, and no effect was given to the alleged settlement, and consequently the Bank was entitled to and the DRT had, in accordance with the law, issued the certificate in its favour.2. It was submitted by Advocates for the appellants, that in the oral agreement the parties had unequivocally settled their disputes in the claim petition, and that the Bank had agreed to receive from the appellants a sum of Rs. 54 lacs, in full and final satisfaction of its claim. He contended, that on the stipulated date the appellants had tendered a sum of Rs. 15 lacs,...
Majid Mondal and anr. Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN218
Gorachand De, J.1. This appeal by Majid Mondal and Ajmira Bibi (husband & wife) is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dt. 18.7.98 and the sentence imposed on 20.7.1998 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nadia in Session Trial No. IV of March, 1998 (Session Case No. 21 of December, 1997) arising out of G.R. Case No. 104/96 (Haringhata P. S. Case No. 36 of 1996 dt. 11.3.1996). By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge found both the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 of the IPC and convicted them thereunder and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for a period of two years.2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Khayer Mondal (P.W.I) at about 08.15 hours on 11.3.96 handed over a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Haringhata Police Station, District-Nadia alleging that in the night of 10/11 day of March, 1996 at about 4.30 a.m. hearing hue and cry from the ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›