Kolkata Court November 2005 Judgments
Nepal Mondal Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN61
Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. The criminal appeal preferred by the appellant Nepal Mondal against the conviction and sentence has been heard along with the death reference following the reference being made by the learned Additional Session Judge, 2nd First Track Court, Cooch Behar.2. This case relates to a shocking murder of a little girl. The prosecution case was to the effect that on 13.05.1999 round about 2 p.m., the appellant Nepal Mondal took Namita Das, D/O-Naren Das, with him with the promise to pluck mangoes for her. Since the little girl did not return even after long time,-her relations fanned out to search for her. They found the appellant Nepal Mondal reading 'Gita' in the house of Bimal Mallick. He was not in normal frame of mind. He murmured that reading of the Gita would wipe out the sin one had committed. Unable to get any clue as to the whereabouts of Namita Das, her relations with neighbours fanned out to search for her. Eventually, her deadbody was found in a ditch with in...
Tag this Judgment!Paresh Chandra Nath Vs. Naresh Chandra Nath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN526
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against judgment and order dated November 30, 2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Cooch Behar in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3 of 2004 reversing the Order No. 9 dated February 26, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tufanganj, District: Cooch Behar in Title Suit No.7 of 2003.2. The plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 institutes this Title Suit No. 7 of 2003 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tufanganj, inter alia, for declaration of the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and for a declaration that the registered deed of gift, executed on January 6, 2001 and registered on January 9, 2001, is fraudulent, false and no title was transferred by the said document in favour of the defendant No. 1 and for setting aside of the said deed. The plaintiff, also, prays for further declaration that the defendant No. 1 had no saleable i...
Tag this Judgment!Buxa Dooars Tea Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)99TTJ(Kol.)898
1. This appeal preferred by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned GIT under Section 263, dt. 17th March, 2005 for the asst. Yr. 2002-03.2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a company. The original return was filed on 28th Oct., 2002, which was revised by the assessee on 18th July, 2003 and again on 8th Aug., 2003.According to the assessee, the assessee had not received any intimation under Section 143(1) in respect of original return filed on 28th Oct., 2002. However, the assessee did receive intimation under Section 143(1) of processing of second revised return dt. 30th June, 2004.2.1 On examination of the assessment records, it was found by the learned GIT that more than one processing order under Section 143(1) of the IT Act have been passed by the AO for the impugned asst. yr.2002-03. Therefore, a notice under Section 263 dt. 18th Feb., 2005 was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the second processing order under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Soma Dey Vs. Swapan Kumar Dey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT53(HC)
P.K. Ray, J.1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.8.2005 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 215 of 1995 by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at Howrah (Sadar) District-Howrah, whereby and whereunder the application of the husband/opposite party praying for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was allowed holding, inter alia, that all alimony as directed to be paid pending litigation has already been paid to the wife. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that alimony was not paid and only by an interim order some amounts were paid but there was no final determination of the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It has been further contended that the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was finally adjudicated upon by the Trial Court allowing maintenance at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bijit Kumar Basu Vs. Dilip Kumar Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT624(HC),2006(2)CHN45
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 Cr. PC filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta and quashing the proceeding being Case No. C-153/99 against accused No. 4 Ananda Bazar Patrika.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that O. P. No. 1 filed a complaint being registered as C-153/99 under Sections 500/ 501/502 IPC against pro-O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 and the present petitioner who are Executive Editor & Reporter, Editor, and Printer & Publisher respectively of Ananda Bazar Patrika as also Ananda Bazar Patrika figuring as accused No. 4. As pro-O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and the present petitioner are responsible for the day to day affairs of the business and publication of the Ananda Bazar Patrika, and Ananda Bazar Patrika is only a brand name of a newspaper which is not a legal entity and is incapable of commit...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Wahed Akunjee Vs. State of W.B.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN331
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Appellants Abdul Wahed Akunjee, Jagannath Rai @ Roy, Abdul Hai Gayen and Manoj Singh from jail preferred these four separate appeals challenging their respective conviction and sentence order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 3rd Bench of the City Sessions Court, Calcutta in connection with Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1998 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 30 of 1998.2. Prosecution case in short was that on 7th November, 1997 at about 13.05 hours some unknown young men numbering more than six and aged between 28 to 35 years came in front of CESC Barabazar Office at Mahatma Gandhi Road and they committed dacoity at the point of firearm in respect of cash of Rs. 25,96,412.35/- kept in four gunny bags and also in respect of one aluminium bag containing some valuable documents of the CESC belonging to Shyambazar cash office. The dacoits took away one SBBL gun from security men belonging to CESC during their operation.3. Soon after commission of the dacoity the neares...
Tag this Judgment!Layeeque Ahmed Akhtar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN634
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The refusal to grant certificate of enlistment to the petitioner vide communication, dated 15th July, 2005 issued by the Chairman, Garulia Municipality, is under challenge in this writ petition.2. The petitioner applied for grant of certificate of enlistment before the concerned Municipal Authority on 22nd April 2005. The prayer for grant of such certificate of enlistment in favour of the petitioner was refused by the concerned Municipal Authority vide annexure 'P-3' to the writ petition on the ground that without production of the consent letter of the landlord, the Municipal Authority is unable to issue the necessary certificate of enlistment (trade licence) to the petitioner.3. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of one shop room at T. D. Banerjee Street, Garulia, P. S. Noapara, Dist. 24-Parganas (North) under the respondent No. 3. Petitioner wants to carry on a business in the said shop room and as such he applied for grant of certificate of enlistmen...
Tag this Judgment!Subhendu Sengupta Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-2005
Reported in: [2006]145STC620(Cal)
Vikas Shridhar Sirpurkar, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. In that writ petition the petitioner had challenged his dismissal from the service as a Clerk in the Bank after a departmental enquiry was held against him.2. The petitioner/appellant was working at the relevant time in Bhukailash Branch of the Central Bank. A chargesheet came to be filed against him dated 2nd July, 1993 alleging, inter alia, that though he had received an amount of Rs. 1,13,136.85/- under five heads and though he was duty bound to deposit the same, he did not actually deposit the entire collected money with the Bank. In the chargesheet it is suggested that in place of depositing the collected amount stated above, he deposited merely Rs. 67,998.46p. and thus he had committed the defalcation. Ultimately, this chargesheet came to be corrected vide a corrigendum where it was suggested that the amount ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Manpiyari Bai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN454
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, A & N Islands, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called IPC) in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2000 (Sessions Trial No. 07 of March, 2004) thereby acquitting the respondent/accused.2. The prosecution story, in short, is that one R. Ravindran Nair (P.W.I) lodged the First Information Report (in short FIR) at Campbell Bay Police Station on 28th April, 1998 at 7.45 p.m. to the effect that on the said date at about 5.30 p.m. Banu Ram's wife came to his house and told him that at about 3.30 p.m. her husband under the influence of liquor was assaulting her. She then pushed her husband Banu Ram (deceased) and he fell down and became unconscious. P.W. 1 then came to Paresh Ram's house and from there he informed the police station over telephone. Thereafter, P.W.1 and S.R. Tiwari came to the house of Banu Ram accompanied by Banu Ram's wife, the presen...
Tag this Judgment!Uniworth Bio-tech Limited Vs. Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Develop ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN709
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. This motion has been taken out for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and/or dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action against the defendant No. 1. In the petition being the grounds of Notice of Motion it has been stated that no part of the cause of action has arisen as per disclosure of the plaintiff within the territorial limit of this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction and also nondisclosure of cause of action as a whole. In an action of this nature the Court is to look into the plaint and plaint alone. As far as non-disclosure of cause of action as contended by learned Counsel Mr, Mitra appearing for the defendant No. 1 is concerned, I do not accept his submission as it has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 26 of the plaint that on account of the aforesaid dealings and transactions there is now due and owing by the defendants jointly and severally to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 32,9...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »