Kolkata Court June 2006 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.
Sadananda Mondal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: (2006)3CALLT210(HC)
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, 24 Pgs(S) in Sessions Case No. 37(2)88 [Sessions Trial No. 3(7)89], on 01.03.1991.2. Shortly put, the Prosecution case is that on 21.02.1987 at about 11/11.30 p.m. when the defacto complainant's son Bijoy Kumar Mondal was proceeding for guarding the paddy-field to the south of their house, on hearing his cry, the complainant (P.W.I) and his wife (P.W.2) went there and found all the accused persons were assaulting their son with lathi and shabal. While they protested, accused Hemanta Mondal assaulted him with a shabal, for which he fell down. When his wife went to his rescue, she was assaulted by accused Joydeb with lathi on her hand. Despite his request to the accused persons not to assault his son, accused Sadanand Mondal assaulted his son with a shabal on his head and leg and others with lathi. The...
Ranjit Chakraborty and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: (2006)3CALLT288(HC)
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. Being convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each for the commission of the offence under Section 304 part 1/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1988, the eleven convicts/appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the said order of conviction, as passed by the learned Trial Court. Said Sessions Trial was started on a written complaint submitted by one Kashi Nath Chakroborty to the Office-in-Charge of Balagarh P.S. on 25.03.1984 and on the basis of that Balagarh P.S. Case No. 11 dated 25.03.1984 was started. In the written complaint, said Kashi Nath Chakraborty stated that 27 persons whose names have been mentioned in the written complaint along with others formed an unlawful assembly on 25.03.1984 at about 8.00 a.m. and being armed with weapons trespassed into the house of his brother Ramanath Chakraborty. Seeing that Ramanath took shelter on t...
Loknath Pal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN20
V.S. Sirpurkar, C.J.1. In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have come up with a plea that a pond in the village, allegedly owned by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 is not only being illegally filled up but a huge construction thereupon is coming up at the instance of those respondents.2. According to the petition, the said pond has an area of about 1 acre 53 satak and all through the year, the pond retains the water. The petitioners point out that originally some other persons were the owners of the said tank along with other contiguous land. However, the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 became the owners by virtue of a sale deed few years ago. The petitioners complain that from 28th of May, 2003 the respondent Nos. 10 and 11 started construction activity by making pillars in the tank. There are some photographs filed along with the writ petition which show substantial construction activity on the bank of the said tank. It is the contention of the petitioners that though they pro...
Sicom Limited Vs. Bajranglal and Suresh Jain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Cal65,(2007)1CALLT52(HC)
Maharaj Sinha, J.1. The learned advocate on record of the creditor/petitioner, (SICOM in short) took out a Notice of Motion dated 8 July 2003 seeking the following orders against the debtors, Bajranglal Jain and Suresh Jain (debtors in short) of 9 Pretoria Street, Calcutta:(a) That an order be passed declaring the said Judgment debtors as insolvents;(b) That an order of adjudication be passed vesting all the property of the respondents in the Official Assignee for payment of debts owed to the petitioner;(c) Costs;(d) Further order or orders and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.2. Needless to mention, the said Notice of Motion was supported by an affidavit affirmed on 24th June, 2003 by one V.C. Deo, Deputy Manager (Legal) of SICOM. According to SICOM both the said Notice of Motion and the said supporting affidavit were served upon the debtors.3. However, when the above was first moved in Court on 8th July, 2003, Justice Narayan Chandr...
Pushpa Chand and ors. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN592
1. Instead of disposing of the application for stay being C. A. N. No. 2725 of 2006, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating the same as on day's list with the consent of the parties.2. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No. 52 dated February 13, 2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge thereby rejecting the plaint.3. The present appellants filed a suit before the City Civil Court at Calcutta being Title Suit No. 1605 of 1997 thereby praying for declaration that the defendants were entitled to realize the arrear taxes from the plaintiffs on the basis of consolidated rate bills of premises No. 76C, Acharyya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Calcutta, but the defendants were not entitled to realize arrear consolidated rate of taxes without the consolidated rate bills from the plaintiffs in respect of the premises and for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from ...
Tarit Kundu, Bishu Sarkar, Sahadeb Sarkar, Sasthi Sarkar, Paresh Sarka ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN809
Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 5th August, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Raiganj District, Uttar Dinajpur, whereby the appellants namely, Tarit Kundu, appellant No. 1; Bishu Sarkar, appellant No. 2; Sahadev Sarkar, appellant No. 3; Shasti Sarkar, appellant No. 4; Paresh Sarkar, appellant No. 5 and Sukumar Ghosh, appellant No. 6 were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 of IPC to suffer imprisonment for life each in connection with Sessions Case No. 47 of 1997 and Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1998 arising out of Raiganj P. S. Case No. 117 of 1995 dated 27th March, 1995 on the basis of a complaint lodged by de facto complainant, Shyamal Mullick.2. The prosecution's case in brief is that on 27th March, 1995, the de facto complainant went to Raiganj Police Station and lodged a written complaint, vide Exhibit 1 series, scribed by one Mamood, alleging that after getting information from Gopal De, P.W. 3 and S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›