Kolkata Court October 2005 Judgments

Smt. Mita Pal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1647

ORDER1. Leave is granted to the learned Advocate for the petitioners to amend the cause title. Just desert.2. While appreciating the anguish of the Petitioner, who has come up before this Court with a lurking apprehension of the loss of her Soul Mate, that should be the prime consideration of this Court.3. Justice is always above law; yet it has to be in accordance with law.4. We need not be caught between Scylla and Charybdis since we feel in this case we have to put justice above all. Normal claptrap of legal niceties have to be jettisoned so as to live up to the Constitutional mandate of the concluding line of Article 226(1) 'and for any other purpose' which has been sought to be invoked before us.5. In this Writ Application in the nature of a Habeas Corpus the Petitioners-Smt. Mita Pal, the young wife of Sepoy Tapas Kumar Pal along with her minor child being represented by her, has sought the following directions:a) Issue a Writ and/or in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus direc...

S.B. Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of India

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2006Cal115

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The summons has been taken out for final judgment under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court. The plaintiff has resorted to the aforesaid summary procedure the provision of which is set out hereunder:Nature of cases in which applicable. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be applicable save to suits.(A) ....(i) to (iv) ....(B) for the recovery of immoveable property with or without a claim for rent or mesne profits by a landlord against a tenant whose term has expired or has been duly determined by notice to quit or has become liable to forfeiture for non-payment of rent or against persons claiming under such tenant.The present suit is for eviction of the defendant who has been described as a monthly tenant, and was inducted by the plaintiff at a monthly rate of rent. The let out premises is entire ground floor and first floor Including a connecting staircase having an area of 3550.25 square feet more or less of premises No. 55, Bhupen...

Birendra Nath Saha Vs. Smt. Chandana Saha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

ORDERKalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. Both the aforesaid applications have been taken out by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being the heir, heiress and/ or successor-in-interest of one Sri Narendra Nath Saha since deceased. The first mentioned application was taken out for setting aside of the decree dated 7th December, 2000 passed in the aforesaid partition suit and also for relief of declaration that the report prepared by the Commissioner of Partition is void and cannot be acted upon. The second mentioned application (G.A. No. 1461 of 2005) was taken out for setting aside of the report of the Commissioner of Partition and for appointment of a new Commissioner of Partition to prepare a report in terms of the agreement annexed with the plaint.2. The plaintiff aforesaid filed the suit for partition in respect of a building and premises No. 35, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata which is a building of several storeys, praying for a preliminary decree de- daring that the plaintiff is enti...

Ashutosh Paul Vs. Industrial Investment Bank of

Court: DRAT Kolkata

Reported in: III(2006)BC201

1. Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. T.T. Haider is present.Learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 Mr. D. Basu Roy is also present.2. The hearing arose out of an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the stay application. The appellant has sought to save the bar of limitation in trying to show "sufficient cause" for the admitted delay in filing the appeal.3. As for the "sufficient cause", the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that in respect of the impugned order, dated 17th September, 2004, which is under challenge in this appeal, reasonable time was spent in the course of proceedings initiated by the appellant both in the High Court, Calcutta, as well as the Supreme Court where the impugned order dated 17th September, 2004 passed by the Tribunal below was challenged. He has further submitted that though the appellant had failed in both counts in the High Court and the Supreme Court, the delay on the part of the appellant was not deliber...

Md. Aftab Alam Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)1CALLT531(HC),2005(4)CHN794,I(2006)DMC870

Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge, 13th Court, 24-Pgs (S), Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 1(2) 2000 on 20.12.2001.2. A thumbnail sketch of the prosecution case is that after divorce by her first husband Md. Aslam, the de facto complainant's daughter Sahera Khatoon was married to Md. Aftab Alam in 1991, and a son and a daughter were born to them. Over the issue of demand of money and other valuable articles she was subjected to torture, physically and mentally, by her husband which she used to report to the complainant. On 14.09.95 at about 09.30 hrs. on receipt of information from her son-in-law Md. Aftab Alam regarding serious illness of Sahera, she rushed to her in-law's house and came to learn from her granddaughter Razia Khatoon (P.W. 2) that on the night of 13.09.95 over some dispute Aftab Alam assaulted Sahera, that Razia went to bed and at about 00.30 ...

Manju Banerjee and ors. Vs. Debabrata Pal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)1CALLT87(HC)

A.K. Ganguly, J.1. The question which has cropped up in this case is whether the order dated 30.03.2004 passed by West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal (LRTT.) holding that no contempt was committed by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Nanoor can be challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. To put it differently, the only point on which the matter was argued before this Court was whether the order of LRTT by which it refused to exercise its Jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act can be assailed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.3. No other controversy of the case was urged before us in this matter.4. In order to appreciate the nature of the question involved in this case, the Court is required to consider the provisions under which LRTT has been set up. It cannot ...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Cal)198

D.K. Seth, J.1. The questions:Against the order of the learned Tribunal holding in favour of the assessee that the first year's subscription was a capital receipt, a reference under Section 256(2) was sought by the Revenue before this High Court. Following the decision in Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI : 1991CriLJ1391 , this High Court was pleased to hold that the case does not involve any question of law. This was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 824-825 of 2001. By an order dt. 3rd Dec., 2002, the apex Court was pleased to hold that the High Court was not correct and ultimately to direct the Tribunal to make a statement of case and refer to the High Court for its opinion the following questions:(a) Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI : 1991CriLJ1391 lays down as an absolute proposition of law that all receipts of subscriptions in the hands of the assessee for the previous yea...

Smt. Mithu Rani Sardar and ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: III(2006)ACC544,2006ACJ2868,(2006)2CALLT241(HC)

Maharaj Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against this Judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court. Bankura, dated 12th May. 2003. in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 37 of 2002/71 of 2001 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The wife of the deceased victim, namely the first appellant herein, Smt. Mithu Rani Sardar, her mother-in-law and her two minor sons and one minor daughter were the claimants before the claims Tribunal who are also the appellants in this appeal. By the said Judgment the claim of the appellants herein for compensation for the death of one Pasupati Sardar, the husband of the first appellant Smt. Mithu Rani Sardar and the son of the second appellant and the father of the third, fourth and the fifth appellants herein was rejected by the Claims Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment the above appellants preferred this appeal.2. The short facts are that the said Pasupati Sardar met with a motor accide...

Uttam Kirtonia Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2006CriLJ2328

Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16-11-00 and 17-11-00 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. V (January) 2000 (Sessions Case No. 5(1) of 1998) thereby convicting the accused-appellant under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer S. I. for a further period of 1 year.2. The prosecution case, in short, was that on the basis of a complaint lodged by PW-1, Chabbi Rani Saha, a case was registered with Kalyani Police Station on 18-9-93 under Section 203 I.P.C. In the First Information Report it was stated that on 17-9-93, i.e. on the date of Vishwakarma Puja at about 21.30 Hrs. the younger brother of P.W. 1 namely Uttam Saha aged about 22 years came to her hotel along with the accused-appellant Uttam Kirtonia and as they were hungry, the victim wanted some food f...

Anju Pal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2007(2)CHN103

P.N. Sinha, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code) is aimed at quashing the charge framed against the petitioners under Section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 5(3) 2005 (G. R. Case No. 2000/96) arising out of Titagarh P. S. Case No. 148 dated 2.7.96 under Section 498A/ 306 of the IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore by order dated 31.3.05.2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Namita Mukherjee on 2.7.96 at Titagarh Police Station. The prosecution story as depicted in the FIR was that, Soma Pal, daughter of de facto complainant Namita Mukherjee was married with Kaushik Pal under Special Marriage Act on 28.10.98 and after marriage Soma Pal went to her matrimonial home. About a month after the marriage, daughter of the informant was subjected to torture by her husband and other in-laws and she came out of ...