Kolkata Court September 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.
Gautam Maitra Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN66
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this writ petition prayer inter alia is for issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to set aside the order of suspension dated 17.10.1996 as contained in Annexure P 2 as well as for issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary after adjusting the subsistence allowance that has been paid together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum. The short facts which are necessary to be taken into consideration are that while the petitioner was working as an Upper Division Assistant in the Institute of Local Government and Urban Studies, he was arrested on 6.9.1996 in connection with South Bidhannagore Police Station Case No. 129 dated 6.9.1996 under Section 381/409/120B IPC. Thereafter, on 19.9.2006, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Barasat, North 24-Parganas in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3304 of 1996. The aforementioned order, granting bail, is Annexu...
Gopal Sinha Vs. Palas Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CHN42
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Before we enter into the subject controversy we would be failing in our duty if we do not discharge the unpleasant task of resolving the controversy on a comment made by Coordinate Bench.2. On perusal of the order impugned it appears that the another learned Judge while disposing of another writ petition made a comment on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench. The comment was as follows:The seed of nepotism in appointment is ingrained and blessed by this Court.3. We have gone through the subject controversy as recorded by the learned Judge in the order impugned. The learned Judge in the order impugned took such comment most seriously. It appears that His Lordship was pained by such remark as the remark was made on the order passed by the same learned Judge being His Lordship. We fully share the shock and pain His Lordship had after going through such comment made by a Coordinate Bench. The other learned Judge, in our view, probably had overlooked that the reason...
Swapan Kumar Sarkar and anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1853
Arunabha Basu, J.1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Third Additional District Judge, Ali-pore in connection with M.A.C. Case No. 205 of 1999. The Tribunal while disposing of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 awarded a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation.3. The short question that arises in this appeal is, whether the learned Tribunal passed an award of compensation whereby and whereunder a lump sum compensation has been awarded by following the correct proposition of law such as, whether the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier method in order to determine the amount of compensation payable to the appellants?4. The case on which the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation was filed in short is that on 16.9.1999 the accident too...
Gour Dey Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN598
Soumitra Sen, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the vires of Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and for declaring the said provision as ultra vires and unconstitutional and for other consequential relief. Initially the application was filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw and/or recall an order dated 20'' February, 2006 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Urban Development Department, whereby a registered deed was held to be void relying upon the provisions of Section 22A of the said Act. Under those circumstances, leave was obtained from this Court to amend the writ petition by adding grounds for challenging the Constitutional validity of the said Act. The eye of the storm is Section 22A of the said Act which was introduced pursuant to an amendment made under Registration (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1981. Section 22A is set out as...
Smt. Promila Mookerjee and anr. Vs. Smt. Krishna Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Cal37
ORDERPranab Kumar Deb, J.1. This instant revisonal application has been directed against the order (dated 6-3-2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore, whereby t the application under Section 17(2)(2A) & (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was allowed.2. In moving the revisional application, Mr. Ashis Bagchi, learned senior counsel has I submitted that since no service was ex* tended in the suit premises, the trial Court c. should not have directed the petitioner to pay the service charge to the tune of Rs. 400/- per month in favour of the landlord. Citing the case of Anita Das Gupta v. A.C. Sett reported in 1984 (88) C.W.N. 242, it is submitted that if the service charges are really independent of the tenancy, it will not be deemed to be part of the rent. The true test would be to find out whether the services which are charged for are for the independent service rendered and enjoyed not as part of the tenancy. Since such independent services have no...
Gopi Nath Pakrashi and ors. Vs. Sukhadamoyee Nari Silpa Mandir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN33
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. I have read the draft judgment of my learned Brother and I agree with His Lordship's findings and ordering portion. However, I wish to add few words to supplement with the risk of slight repetition. In this appeal the question is whether the learned Trial Judge has rightly accepted the document dated 15th August, 1971 said to be the last Will and testament of one Sadhan Pakrashi as a genuine and lawful testamentary instrument or not. The learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury urges that had the learned Judge read evidence carefully he could have found the document is a manufactured and forged one and further it was executed under suspicious circumstances. Though such plea is not taken but after reading of the document with the evidence adduced by both the parties it will appear that this document cannot be of Sadhan Pakrashi's. Mr. Roy Chowdhury contends further that the grantee is 'an interested person' and there was no reason to exclude...
Kamal Mondal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(2)CHN87
Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. By this appeal the three appellants assail the judgment and order dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Alipore whereby they were convicted under Section 376 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another six months each.2. The victim's mother Bakuli Begum lodged a complaint with the O.C., Bishnupur P.S. at 10.25 hours on 2.7.1998 alleging that at 8.30 p.m. on 26.06.1998 when her daughter, the victim was coming back from the grocery shop the three appellants took her to an empty room after putting a cloth into her mouth whereupon the three raped her daughter one after another and carried on physical tortures on her throughout the night. She had been in search of her daughter in the night of 26.06.1998 itself and it was at 6 a.m. in the following morning (27.06.1998) when one Milan Bag told her ...
Jaganathan Pillai Vs. Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN130
Soumitra Pal, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition was dismissed by the following order:Since my opinion, the writ application is not maintainable against the respondent-society which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, and hence the writ petitioner cannot have any right to file the instant writ application before this Court.Hence, the writ application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.2. Mrs. Nag learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order is per incuriam as the writ petition is maintainable against the Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti ('Samiti' in short) in view of principles of law laid down in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in C.O. No. 020 (W) of 1996 (T.A. Thomas v. Chairman, Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samity and Ors.) where the respondents did not dispute that Samiti is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitut...
Tapan Kar and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN532
Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampurhat in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1999 (Sessions Case No. 82 of 1993) thereby sentencing the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer further R.I. for 3 months each for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.2. The prosecution case arose out of written complaint/FIR (Ext. 1) lodged by Krishnendu Palit (P.W.1) before the Officer-in-Charge, Rampurhat P.S. on 25.6.90. The prosecution story depicted in the FIR, in short, is that Anjana Palit (since deceased), sister of P.W. 1 was given in marriage with Arup Kar on 7.5.90. After marriage her husband, her brother-in-law-and sister-in-laws used to torture Anjana severely. On 24.6.90 at about 1...
Delta Febrics Private Limited and anr. Vs. Industrial Development Bank ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN594
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The writ petitioner was a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of fabrics. It applied for financial accommodation to Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'). The petitioner duly furnished necessary documents along with its application. The project was estimated at Rs. 1210.00 lacs. However, the bank sanctioned Rs. 650.00 lacs and asked the petitioner to deposit upfront fee @1.05% of the sanctioned amount being Rs. 6,82,500.00. The petitioner duly paid the said sum without any protest. The parties, thereafter, negotiated the terms of the agreement on which the sanction was to be implemented and actual financial accommodation to be extended. The petitioner, however, did not agree with the terms so prescribed by the bank. The bank ultimately cancelled the sanction. The petitioner accepted such cancellation, however, asked for refund of upfront fee which was refused by the bank. Hence the writ petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »