Kolkata Court April 2005 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.
Arun Kumar Mohanti Vs. Probhat Kumar Chakravorty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)3CALLT154(HC),2005(2)CHN561,II(2005)DMC203
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.Heard finally with the consent of the parties.1. Present is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the criminal complaint lodged by the respondent, Mr. Probhat Kumar Chakravorty, for an offence under Section 406 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It seems that on the private complaint, 12th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata took cognizance and issued summons. The criminal case was registered as Case No. C/14234 of 2004 and the 12th Metropolitan Magistrate had ordered the issuance of summons by the order dated 10th January, 2005. The petitioners are the officers of Reserve Bank. Petitioner No. 1 being Deputy General Manager (Personnel), while the petitioner No. 2, Assistant General Manager, working in the Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata. While the complainant, Probhat Kumar Chakravorty is also an employee working in the Reserve Bank of India.2. Following factual background is necessary for understanding the controversy...
i.F.C.i. Limited Vs. the Official Liquidators and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC571
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This is an application for variation/modification/ clarification of the order dated February 22, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of this Court by which the said Division Bench set aside the order dated 1st February, 2002 passed by the learned Company Judge confirming sale of a company in liquidation.2. The said Division Bench on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record came to the conclusion that the parties or the intending purchasers did not get opportunity to go through the valuation report nor was the valuation report placed before the learned Company Judge. According to the Division Bench, having regard to the valuation report submitted in the case which was not brought to the notice of the Court or the parties, it would appear that the sale at a sum of Rs. 85 lakh would be too inadequate and low. The Division Bench further was of the view that the sale of a big paper mill which was subject matter of con...
Sambhunath Mitra and ors. Vs. Khaitan Consultant Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal281,2005(2)CHN519
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These three first appeals were heard analogously as those are interlinked and are preferred against a common judgment dated February 27, 2003 passed by the learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 3099 of 1996 and Title suit No.347 of 1997 which were heard analogously. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Judge dismissed Title Suit No. 3099 of 1996 and decreed Title Suit No. 347 of 1997 thereby passing a decree for khas possession by evicting the defendants of the said suit from the suit premises. The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 347 of 1997 was further given a decree for mesne profit to be adjudicated in separate proceedings. By the said decree, the defendants were directed to vacate the suit premises within two months from the date of passing of such decree.2. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid two decrees, the present three appeals have been filed.3. F. A. T. No. 798 of 2003 is at the instance of the defendant No. 3 i...
Anil Credit Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. E.C. Bose and Co. (Paradip) Pvt. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: II(2006)BC472,2005(3)CHN91
P.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners. In my opinion, this revisional application can be disposed of without hearing the opposite parties and without serving any notice to the opposite parties. It appears that by the order dated 22nd February, 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Kolkata in connection with Case No. 1333 of 2000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act he issued the order of attachment against the accused No. 1 company and warrant of arrest against accused No. 2 as on the said date the learned Advocate who was representing both company and the accused No. 2 was absent and the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order. It appears to me that the said order was not in accordance with the law because when the learned Magistrate found that the learned Advocate was absent, who was representing both the company and the accused No. 2, the learned Magistrate should have asked the said learned Advocate to show caus...
Sriram Rayons Vs. Ashok NaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN596
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 1 in a suit for specific performance of contract and mandatory injunction and is directed against the preliminary decree dated 27th April, 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 6th Court, Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 85 of 1995 thereby granting a decree of specific performance of contract for appointment of Government valuer by both sides for fixation of rate of rent and payment of the same. The parties were directed to appoint a Government valuer each, within two months from that date and if any one of the parties failed or neglected to appoint such Government valuer, the report of the other side would be accepted by the Court by virtue of the said decree. The appellants were directed to deposit Rs. 6,000/- per month provisionally before the Court from May, 2001.2. There is no dispute that the appellant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of a Godown...
Savitri Devi Daga and ors. Vs. Puranmall Goenka
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN115
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of added defendants and is directed against judgment and decree dated 30th May, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 6th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 12 of 1986 thereby passing a decree in a suit for Specific Performance Contract.2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed the aforesaid suit being Title Suit No. 60 of 1984 for Specific Performance of agreement for sale dated 13th day of October, 1982 and the case made out by the respondent No. 1 may be summed up thus:(a) The original defendant, since deceased, represented to the plaintiff that he was the absolute owner of the suit property and on the basis of such representation the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property by a written agreement dated 13th October, 1982 at a price of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The suit property consists of 10 bighas, 4 cottahs and 7 chittaks and 37 sq.ft. of land with building and structure belonging to original defendant.(b) P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›