Kolkata Court August 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.
Ganesh Bahadur Khawas Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN611
Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.07.1998 and order of sentence dated 27.07.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri under Section 302 of the IPC sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years in Sessions Case No. 19(5)/1996 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 4/96.2. The facts were these:The wife of the deceased Smt. Lila Tamang lodged a written complaint with the O.C. Sukna Police Outpost at 3.25 p.m. on 2.6.1996 alleging that at 2.30 p.m. on 2.6.1996 when her husband Ganey Bahadur Tamang had gone to the house of the appellant who lived in the same locality as that of her the appellant hit her husband by an axe on his head and thereby caused his death. The appellant who started fleeing away from his house where murder of her husband was committed was apprehended by the villagers and then...
United Commercial Bank and anr. Vs. George Kuruvilla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: (2007)2CALLT282(HC),[2007(113)FLR274]
1. The respondent No. 1 was an officer of United Commercial Bank posted abroad. He was implicated in a disciplinary proceeding on the charge of financial irregularity committed while discharging his official duty abroad. On May 27, 1991 he was put under suspension. He was charge sheeted on October 4, 1993. He was afforded opportunity to defend himself in the said proceeding. He, however, contended in the writ petition that he was not given the benefit of inspection of 39 documents which according to him were relevant for the purpose of defending himself in the said proceeding. The bank could not offer inspection of those documents as according to the bank those documents were destroyed at the instance of the respondent No. 1 and the bank also could not exhibit those documents before the enquiry officer. Without those documents being exhibited the writ petitioner was held guilty of the charges brought against him by the enquiry officer. Before the enquiry officer he also insisted that o...
Nirodini Roy Vs. N.i.A. Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-2006
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN672
1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.2. Assailing the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri in connection with M.A.C. Case No. 408 of 1996 the appeal is filed. The learned Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 24.3.1998 allowed the application filed by the appellants claiming compensation in terms of provision under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and allowed a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- payable by both the Insurance Companies jointly in favour of the appellants. The application under Section 163A of the said Act was instituted consequent to the death of the husband of the appellant who according to the recital in the application met with death while he was travelling by maxi taxi bearing No. WB-71/6265 which was proceeding from Dhupguri to Huslurdanga More. The said vehicle met with an accident after it collided with another vehicle bearing No. WGT-2200 which was coming from the opposite direction. A short q...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC40
1. The matter relates to an application under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which shall be referred to hereinafter as "the RDDBFI Act" for short.2. The applicant-appellant, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the impugned order of the D.R.T. dated 3rd February, 2005 which had refused to set aside the ex parte order. It had nothing to do as such with the merits of the main case with regard to the determination of debt. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the applicant that Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act applies to those appeals where order is made determining the debt either under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act or under Rule 12(5) directing the defendant to pay the amount determined. It has been further submitted that it was an application simplicitor for setting aside the ex parte order and the instant appeal has been filed only by challenging the impugned order and, therefore, there is no need to comply with...
Bank of India Vs. Chotanagpur Graphite Industries
Court: DRAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC53
1. Learned Advocate for the appellant is present. None has appeared for the respondents.2. The matter relates to an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay for filing the present appeal.3. The only point for consideration is whether sufficient reason have been ascribed for the delay and whether the reasons as shown by the applicant. Bank of India, are acceptable to the Tribunal to condone the delay and to admit the appeal.4. The sequence of events that has allegedly led to the delay in filing the appeal may be summed up as follows: The impugned order of the D.R.T., Ranchi was passed on 21st November, 2005 and the instant appeal was filed on 3rd February, 2006. In between the controlling office of the applicant-Bank as per their usual practice forwarded all papers and documents to the zonal office on 23rd December, 2005. Mr. Pradip Pal Choudhury was engaged by the zonal office as the Advocate to file and represent the case for the Bank in the ...
Turner Morrison and Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN905
1. Since both these appeals involve identical question of law these are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In terms of Section 188 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act,1980 (hereinafter referred to the said Act of 1980) objections with regard to enhancement of valuation is to be disposed of by the Hearing Officer in the manner prescribed in the said section. Section 189 provides for appeal to be preferred against the decision of the Hearing Officer within 45 days from the date of service of a copy of the order passed by the Hearing Officer under Section 188. Under Rule 9 of the Taxation Rules framed under the said Act of 1980 the order was to be communicated to the objector in Form H. Form H prescribes communication of the said order in the said format. The words 'copy of order' are also stipulated in Form H. However, the communication under Rule 9(2) which is commonly known as red card only specifies the enhanced or reduced valuation which is communicated to the objector and t...
Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ881Cal
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.1. This writ application is filed by the petitioner Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd., (formerly known as ANZ Grmdlays Bank Ltd.,) challenging the legality and validity of the order of reference No. L-12012/223/ 2000-IR (B-1) dated February 8, 2001 passed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(a) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 referring the dispute relating to the order of dismissal from service passed against the respondent No. 6 to the respondent No. 5 for adjudication.2. The respondent No. 6 was appointed as Clerk-Cum-Cashier under the petitioner on or about March 1, 1971. Pursuant to a circular, the respondent No. 6 applied for the post 'Head Cashier Grade-I on Special Rates of Pay'. The respondent No. 6 was selected and appointed to the above post of 'Head Cashier on Special Rates of Pay, Grade-I' on probation with effect from May 12, 1978. The appointment of the res...
Raptakos, Brett and Company Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Property
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN833
1. A lease for a term of 21 years commencing from 16th March, 1964 and ending on 15th March, 1985 was granted by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of ground floor of the main building at premises No. 6, Marquis Street, Calcutta at a monthly rental of Rs. 2,045/- payable according to English Calendar. The lease expired by efflux of time on 15th March, 1985. The defendant failed to make over vacant possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly on or about 8th August, 1986 filed a suit claiming recovery of khas possession and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day from 16th March, 1985 till recovery of possession. It would appear from a combined reading of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint filed in Title Suit No. 1481 of 1986 that the claim for mesne profit was made on the basis that after expiry of lease by efflux of time on 15th March, 1985 the defendant became a trespasser and, therefore, mesne profit was claimed. At the hearing of the suit, however, the claim f...
Basanti Seal and ors. Vs. Hiralal Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN55
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. In this suit, the original plaintiff Subol Charan Seal, since deceased and substituted by heirs, has prayed for a declaration that the deed dated 28.12.56 executed jointly by Radheshyam Seal and Sabitri Seal and deed dated 17.12.62 executed by Sabitri Seal are inoperative, null and void, for partition and other reliefs.2. Shortly put, and shorn of details, the plaintiffs' case is that Radheshyam Seal, father of the original plaintiff Subol Charan Seal, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, and defendant. No. 1 Parbati Sankar Seal, since deceased and substituted by heirs, and defendant No. 2 Hiralal Seal, who was the owner of immovable properties, as described in schedule 'A' and movable properties, as described in schedule 'B' to the plaint, executed a deed of settlement/trust on 01.09.37 in respect of three properties, as described in schedule 'A', providing that he and his wife Sabitri seal would act as joint trustees thereof and they may reside in t...
Nanda Kumar Guhathakurata Vs. Managing Director and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN132
Tapen Sen, J.1. The petitioner prays, inter alia, for setting aside the order dated 8th July 2006 (as contained in Annexure P-5) and for issuance of an order commanding upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to consider and appoint the petitioner on the basis of the appointments given to the respondent Nos. 6 to 9.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner craves leave to be allowed to make correction of a clerical error appearing in paragraph 28(a) of the prayer portion where the impugned order dated 8th July, 2006 has been wrongly described as 2nd February, 2006. He may to do so during the course of the day.3. The admitted case of the petitioner, as is evident from the statements made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition is, that while working as an Office Secretary in the Department of Estate Allotment of the Durgapur Steel Plant, the petitioner's father died-in-harness on 20th September, 1994 leaving behind him his wife, two sons (out of which the petitioner is unemployed) and a daughter.4....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »