Kolkata Court July 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.
Subhasish Singha and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN260
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, JJ.1. The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 1992 on 15.10.2001.2. Shortly put, and shorn of details, the prosecution case is that the marriage of Smritirani Singha, third sister of the de facto complainant (P.W. 10) took place with accused Subhasish on 02.08.1987 when various kinds of dowry, as demanded by her father-in-law Pranab Kumar Singha, were given. After the marriage she was subjected to insult and abuse by her father-in-law, mother-in-law Annapurna Singha and grandmother-in-law Bangabala Singha (since deceased before framing of charge), over the issue of more dowry, and at the time of her visit to her father's house at Varanasi, she used to narrate about such torture. After the birth of her daughter, the degree of torture upon her, both physical and mental, increased. On many occasions the said accus...
In Re: Joydeb Pradhan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN629
Alpha:1. An otherwise innocuous application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the said Code') which under ordinary circumstances could have been disposed of in the usual fashion, however, has hit the Hornet's nest and a situation has so bubbled up that not only the management of G. R. Case No. 159 of 2005 before the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Haldia suffers a jinxed deliberation but the same has a wider ramification which has to be addressed by the Court, keeping in mind the issue which has cropped up and covers several such situations that take place daily in the various Magistracies.Background:2. A Division Bench of this Court in C. R. M. No. 3000 of 2005 on April 13, 2005 allowed the prayer of the petitioners in terms of Section 438 of the said Code who apprehended arrest in connection with Nandigram Police Station Case No. 33/05 under Sections 341, 448, 323, 325, 354, 308, 506 and 34. It was directed that the said order un...
Dibakar Das Vs. Registrar General, Appellate Side, High Court and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN48
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. An order dated 3rd May, 2005 passed by the Enquiry Officer rejecting the petitioner's applications for stay of the departmental enquiry proceeding till the disposal of the criminal cases, viz., English Bazar, P.S. Case Nos. 84 of 2004 and 85 of 2004 both dated 21st February, 2004, is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of a delinquent employee being the petitioner herein.2. The delinquent employee is the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Malda. A departmental proceeding for holding an enquiry against the petitioner has been initiated under the West Bengal Judicial Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2002 on imputation of the following two sets of articles of charges framed against him which are as follows :-Annexure-IStatement of Article of Charge framed against the petitioner.Article of Charge No. IIt is alleged that the petitioner, a member of West Bengal Higher Judicial Service while posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda in the Dist...
Sukumar Saha Vs. Shyamal Kumar Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN12
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 1 in a suit for eviction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1993, passed by the learned Judge, 9th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2136 of 1982 thereby passing a decree for recovery of possession and mesne profit at the rate of Re.1 per day in favour of the plaintiff till the recovery of possession.2. The respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid suit being Title Suit No. 2138 of 1982 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta thereby praying for recovery of possession of the suit property from the appellant herein and the case made out by the respondent No. 1 may be epitomised thus:(a) The suit property being premises No. 3/1/1C, Nanda Ram Sen Street belonged to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and one Aloke Ranjan Saha and in the year 1943, they let out the entire ground floor consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom and privy with a porch and courtyard to one...
Arup Kumar Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ16
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. Grievance of the petitioners is that in the complaint dated July 5th, 2005 lodged by them with the officer -in-charge of Maidan Police Station, Kolkata no step was taken by the police authorities to make investigation, though allegations made in it made out a case of commission of cognizable offences by the respondents in this writ petition.2. The admitted facts are these. The petitioners purchased a motor vehicle with the finance provided by the respondent private financier. Prescribing the terms and conditions for granting and taking loan parties duly executed an agreement, and in terms of provision thereof, on failure to repay the loan amount, the financier would have been entitled to exercise the right of taking possession of the vehicle in question. The petitioners did not repay the loan according to terms and conditions of the agreement. As a result, on July 15, 2005 respondent-financier took possession of the vehicle. At the time of taking possess...
Prem Das Alias Prema Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT142(HC)
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. The present appellant was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and when he was produced under arrest after starting of investigation, he was adjudged as juvenile delinquent and his entire trial, therefore, commenced before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in charge of Juvenile Court, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Calcutta.2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate initiated the case against the juvenile delinquent under case No. TR 14 of 2000 of his file and after conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate sentenced the juvenile delinquent to suffer detention from life in the safe custody subject to set off as provided in section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Before dealing with several questions of fact and law raised in connection with hearing of this appeal preferred by the juvenile delinquent, we may record the prosecution case briefly.4. The prosecution case in a nutshell was that on 19.12.1999 on receipt of a telephonic message, S.I. H.K...
Ramesh Chandra Pramanick Vs. Sushil Kumar Pradhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CHN658
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order No. 41 dated January 28, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Uluberia, District -Howrah in Miscellaneous Case No. 73A of 2001. By the order impugned the learned Civil Judge rejected an application filed by the pre-emptee under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The pre-emptee/petitioner purchased .04 decimals of land in plot No. 491 appertaining to Khatian No. 677 of Mouza Rasti, District-Howrah by a registered deed of conveyance dated September 25, 1997 from one Shrimati Shyamali Guchati.3. The pre-emptor/opposite party filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption. The said application was filed in the Court of the learned Munsif at Uluberia, District-Howrah. The proceeding was registered as L. R. Case No. 63 of 1987. The pre-emptee contested the case. The learned Munsif by...
Basant Kumar Bucharia Vs. Dvc and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-2005
Reported in: 1(2006)CLT459
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. This Judgment shall dispose of two Appeals, they being MAT No. 2143 of 2005 and MAT No 2211 of 2005. Appeal No. 2211 of 2005 is against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dated 9.11.2004 in W.P. No. 20449(W) of 2004. The learned single Judge by that Judgment had allowed the writ petition filed by the two petitioner, namely, Calcutta Industrial Supply Corporation ('CISC' for short) and its partner Shri Narayan Prasad Agarwal. By that it was directed that the second part of the petitioners' tender should be considered and till such time, the final decision regarding the issue of tender order should be deferred till such time. The writ appeal No. MAT 2143 of 2005 is against the Judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition No. 5953(W) of 2005 filed by the applicant Basant Kumar Bucharia in his capacity as a Proprietor of M/s. Amrit Coal Carriers, a proprietory concern. Both the appeals invoke a common subject of a tender floated by the Damo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anandilal Poddar and Sons Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)199CTR(Cal)539,[2005]279ITR104(Cal)
1. It is pointed out that this appeal covers two assessment years. The court fee paid is to be accepted in respect of the first assessment year. The appellant shall put in additional court fee for the second assessment year within a period of eight weeks. In default, the appeal shall be treated as against the assessment year 1991-92 and so far as the assessment year 1995-96 is concerned, the same shall stand dismissed in default of putting in the deficit court fees within the period stipulated above.2. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act: Application of the Limitation Act: Whether excluded:3. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal by the Department by 137 days. Learned counsel for the respondent took a novel point, that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no manner of application in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in view of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Limitat...
American Refrigerator Co. Ltd. Vs. First Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN138,[2006(109)FLR400],(2006)IILLJ271Cal
1. On earlier occasion the appeal was dismissed for default. An application for recalling the order dated 15th June, 2005 having been filed, we proposed to hear the said application along with the appeal and to pass order on the said application in case Mr. Ghosh points out that there are sufficient materials to allow the appeal. But in course of hearing, we have heard the appeal on merit. In the circumstances, the application for recalling is hereby allowed and the order dated 15th June, 2005 is hereby recalled and the appeal is disposed of as hereafter since agreed to by the parties, who had argued comprehensively, treating the appeal, by consent of parties, as on day's list for hearing.2. The declaration of suspension of work or lock-out was the subject-matter of the dispute since referred to the learned Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Tribunal had come to a conclusion that there was no justification to suspend the work and declare the loc...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »