Kolkata Court September 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.
Mina Barai and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN686
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the accused petitioners assailing the order dated 27.4.05 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special), Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 124/99 thereby allowing the prayer of prosecution under Section 311 of the Code for date of evidence of medical officer and production of records of Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 69/96.2. Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that in the aforesaid sessions case after conclusion of evidence and examination of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code and after hearing the arguments of both sides, it was pending for judgment. After completion of argument and before delivery of judgment there was a prayer on behalf of prosecution praying for further evidence of medical officer and production of records of Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 69/96. The doctor was exa...
Biplab Chanda Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN528,1(2006)CLT450
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14,05.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1996 (Sessions Case No. 74 of 1996) thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I., for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and to suffer R.I. for 2 years for offence under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that accused appellant Biplab Chanda married victim Dipali and brought her to his house. This was a love marriage but it was accepted by the other brothers of Biplab Chanda, who were the members of a joint family. The eldest brother of the accused namely Dipak Chanda. who was a school teacher, used to stay at a different place and during Durga puja on the Navami day he came home and learnt that following a quarrel w...
Samir Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN247
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 9.2.2001 and 12.2.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. XXTV (1) of 2000 thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer RI for a further period of six months.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 29.7.96 at about 23.00 hours a case was registered with Liluah Police Station on the basis of an information lodged by Santosh Kr. Bhowmick (P.W. 1). In the First Information Report it was alleged that accused Samir Chatterjee and his wife approached P.W. 1 for a tenanted room and accordingly a room with tin shed and split bamboo fencing was let out by P.W. 1 to the accused person at a rental of Rs. 150/-per month. It was further stated in the FIR, that for the last few days, a quarrel was goin...
TIn Plate Dealers Association P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Sanw ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas316(Cal),[2006]68SCL184(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Tin Plate Dealers Association Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the said company') was incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The company for substantial period had no activity save and except receiving income from immovable property. The company had a large plot of land at New Delhi on lease from Delhi Development Authority acquired in 1981. It was a closely held company. The shares were held by the Sanwalka group and the Gupta group. Prior to 1986 one Satyasil Gupta was in control and management of the said company whereas the entire shareholding belonged to him and his family members. In 1986 the Sanwalka were invited to join the company. They were allotted shares in the company. The shares which were allotted to the Sanwalkas, were originally held by M/s. Gupta Brothers (a concern of Gupta) who did not respond to the unpaid calls and thereby the shares were forfeited. Those forfeited shares were allotted to the Sanwalkas...
Naba Mudran Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Chief Post Master General and o ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal30,2006(3)CHN729
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. This writ petition has been taken out alleging delay on the part of the Indian postal authorities in providing facilities to the petitioners for sending bulk mails through surface air lifted mail and airmail services to various parts of the United Kingdom.2. The petitioners received a business order from their foreign client (UNICEF UK) dated May 5th 2005, relevant portions whereof are: 'This is to confirm that UNIGEF would like to produce in the region of 450,000 letters printed by your company and posted using the Indian postal service between the 16th May and the 31st August. After the 31st August we may look to carry out further mailings but these will be confirmed closer to the time.'3. The foreign party started producing similar letters and sending them in bulk using the postal services of this country, for the first time in 1997, for both the purposes they engaged the petitioners. From then the yearly practice continued smoothly till the year 2004...
Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Buddha Dev Bose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)CHN1
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for recovery of arrears of mesne profit and damages and is directed against an ex parte decree dated November 22, 2000 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Money Suit No. 63 of 1997.2. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of arrears of mesne profit and damages as well as interest on the following allegations:(a) The respondent is the owner of a flat being Flat No. 14C, situated on the fourteenth floor of a multi-storied building at premises No. 10, Lord Sinha Road where the appellant was inducted as a tenant in respect of the said flat along with one covered parking space in the ground floor.(b) The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession of the said flat as well as parking space being Ejectment Suit No. 348 of 1991 on the grounds, inter alia, that the appellant has made default in payment of rent from June, 1986 onwards at the r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tezpore Tea Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(Cal)130,[2005]279ITR339(Cal)
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay has been sought to be explained in the manner stated in paragraph 6 of the application. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay has been sufficiently explained and he had taken us through the statements made in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 and various paragraphs in the application and prayed that the delay be condoned.2. Mr. Bajoria, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, has pointed out that there is delay of about 458 days and that the delay has not been properly explained and the statements made in paragraph 6 do not seem to be a sufficient explanation for condoning the delay. He also pointed out that an officer of the rank of an inspector in the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax has affirmed the affidavit. No officer of responsible rank has taken the responsibility of the statements made in the application. Mr. Bajoria had drawn our attention to this case and...
Shri Joy Dev Majhi Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: (2006)1CALLT120(HC)
J. Bhattacharya, J.1. In this application the applicant has prayed for review and/or recall of the Judgment and/or order dated 14th June, 2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the instant Mandamus Appeal being MAT No.009 of 2005.2. Before entering into the merit of this application for review I must keep in mind that the Court cannot be oblivious about the scope of review of its own order and/or Judgment under section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Review cannot be equated at par with the appeal. The scope and/ or ambit of interference in appeal is much more wider than that of review. In appeal, the Appellate Court is absolutely free to consider the legality and/or validity of the order impugned in the appeal. Both mistake of law and fact can be rectified in appeal. But the power of the Court to reivew its own Judgment is circumscribed by limitation as prescribed under section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. An appl...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sarkar and Sarkar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-2005
Reported in: (2006)2CALLT566(HC)
Indira Banerjee, J.1. The Court: This application under Section 34 read with Section 13 and Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act is for setting aside of an award made and published by the learned Arbitrator, Sri Sudhanshu Sekhar Ganguly, a retired Judge of this Court on 23rd April 2004.2. Sometime in 1995 the petitioner invited tenders for the construction of the office complex of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bolpur, including the Treasury. As per the tender notice, the estimated value of the work was Rs. 61, 92, 900/- and the time stipulated for completion of the tender work was 24 months.3. The tender submitted by the respondent No. 1 was accepted, the same being the lowest, and the petitioner was awarded the contract for the construction work. The contract contained an Arbitration Clause, in terms whereof disputes were to be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chief Engineer of the Department. If the Chief Engineer were...
Belowara Bibi @ Belawara Khatun Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)CHN81
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application under Section 401 road with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Code) has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 31.5.05 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (in short SDJM), Murshidabad, Berhampore in G. R. Case No. 321/04 rejecting prayer of the petitioner for releasing' her from the Silayan Home on her own bond.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that O.P. No. 2 Mantu Fakir is the de facto complainant and on the basis of First Information Report (FIR) lodged by him the Nawda P.S. Case No. 23 dated 13.9.04 under Section 363/ 366/120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) was started. The petitioner married according to her own wishes against the consent of her father. The petitioner married one Mirjamal Sk. @ Mintu Sk. according to her own wishes after attaining puberty. In view of Section 251 of the Mahomedan Law a Muslim woman who attains puberty can marry ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »