Kolkata Court December 2007 Judgments

Kashinath Mondal and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN7

1. The judgement and order dated 1st April, 2002 is assailed by this appeal. Upon reading of the impugned judgement and order we find that the only point raised before the learned Tribunal by the applicant herein is, to challenge the order of the District Land and Land Reforms Officer being the appellate authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), whether without considering the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the appellate authority could decide the matter on merit or not. From the records the following facts emerge:The applicants, Mondals, had filed an application for recording their names as bargadars under the ownership of one Abanti Nath Pal and Jibanti Nath Pal being heirs and legal representatives Of one Jitendra Nath Pal, since deceased, in respect of 3.39 acres of land, Dag No. 140 of Mouza Atghara in the year, 1978, though the land in question had been transferred to different per...

Bank of Baroda Vs. Govind Ram Agarwal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008CriLJ1313

ORDERPartha Sakha Datta, J.1. By this application dated 22-6-2004 under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. prayer has been made for quashing of the proceeding being C-Case No. 1240 of 2004 pending before the learned Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta under Section 120-B/409 of the I.P.C. The opposite party herein lodged a petition of complaint some time in the middle of 2004 against M/s. Bank of Baroda, accused No. 1 and other accused persons who are the officers of the said bank. The complainant deposited four fixed deposits of Rs. 7,15,000/-, 2,80,000/-, 2,40,000/- and 4,00,000/- with the said bank by way of trust and security and on 7-1-1992 and 15-1-1992 the bank deducted Rs. 1,777/- and Rs. 1,965/- by way of TDS on interest accrued on the aforesaid fixed deposits but did not issue any certificate of TDS in favour of the complainant in spite of the demand lastly made on 15-1-2004. Thus according to the complainant the accused persons committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by crimi...

Pabitra Construction and Co. Vs. Uco Bank and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2008Cal103,2008(1)CHN937

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioner and is directed against order dated 1st October, 2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship refused to grant any ad interim order of injunction at the time of passing direction for filing affidavit by the respondents. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal.2. The writ petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Amal Kumar Kayal, Kamal Kayal and Smt. Kakali Parui. In the writ application, the writ petitioner, represented by the first two above named partners, prayed for the following relief:(a) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from acting beyond their capacity and power conferred under the banking rules and norms;(b) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass the cheques as referred to in paragraphs hereinabove upon further presentation without any further delay o...

State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT560(HC),2008(3)CHN830

1. The above application is directed against a judgment and order dated 18th August 2005 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 1053 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal allowed the application and granted relief to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The short fact of the case which is leading to filing of the instant application, is put in short hereunder:2. The respondent Sri Subhas Kumar Chatterjee and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are the Research Assistants working in the Public Works (Roads) Directorate under the administrative control of the Chief Engineer and were posted at Murisidabad Highway Division No. 1 at Berhampur, Mursidabad. The 50% vacancy in the post of Research Assistant is to be filled in under relevant circular of the department, by way of promotion from immediately feeder post of senior laboratory assistant, and remaining 50 per cent is to be filled up by the method of direct recruitment with higher qualification namely B.Sc. degree with physi...

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Agarwala and Co. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(1)CHN751

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against the order dated December 20, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed the writ application filed by the private respondent before us, by quashing the demand of the appellants dated October 29, 1991 being Annexure 'E' to the writ application and the communications being Annexures 'E-1', 'E-2' and 'E-3' with further direction upon the appellants to refund the security deposit of the private respondent within six weeks from the date of communication of the order. The appellants were further directed to refund the sale proceeds of the off-loaded goods in question to the writ petitioners within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.2. The private-respondent before us filed a writ application thereby praying for the following relief:(a) Writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel the memoran...

Biswa Kumar Bepari Vs. Andaman and Nikobar Islands Admn.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN507

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 30th August, 1993 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 1 of February, 1993 arising out of Sessions Case No. 29/91 convicting the accused Biswa Kumar Bepari under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and an order sentencing the convict to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of this case are as follows:On 25th February, 1987 at about 4 p.m. the prosecutrix aged about 16 years and 7 months went to fetch drinking water from the village water tap. She was intercepted by the accused; dragged in the nearby paddy field, gagged, overpowered, overawed at a sickle point and ravished. She was threatened of dire consequences in case she resorted to divulging the fact. She was further directed by the accused to go home with the pitcher full of water in order to project a pictu...

Durga Bala Biswas and ors. Vs. Renuka Sarkar and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN40

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 32 dated 17th July, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 156 of 1995 by which the defendants' prayer for amendment of the written statement was rejected on contest.2. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for partition against the petitioners as well as the other opposite parties herein in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia.3. The case as made out by the plaintiff in the said suit is as follows:Arjun Mondal, Nagendra Nath Mondal and Debendra Nath Biswas were the owners of the suit property having 1/3rd share each therein. The said Arjun and Debendra sold their right, title and interest in the suit property to one Dhiresh Chandra Sarkar by two registered deed of kobalas dated 5th August, 1960 and 9th March, 1960. Thus, Dhi...

Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Anita Subrewal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN46

Arunabha Basu, J.1. The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated May 23, 2000 passed by the learned Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Calcutta in M.A. Appeal No. 385/1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal reduced the annual valuation of Flat No. 112A, Block-A of premises No. 1C, Pramathes Barua Sarani, Calcutta- 19 for the period of 3/96-97.2. It appears from the record that in spite of service of notice, none appeared for the opposite party, as such the matter is heard and decided ex parte after hearing the submission made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner.3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the judgment, submitted that the Tribunal being creature of the statute, must follow the procedure strictly, but in this case the learned Tribunal deviated from the procedure as prescribed under law and as such the order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be set aside.4. Lear...

Probodh Chandra Ghose and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN451

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in this writ application is the resolution dated January 5, 2006 adopted in the meeting of the respondent No. 2 and the order passed by the respondent No. 3 under memo No. 855(2) dated October 10, 2006.2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is this the petitioners were the owners of vehicle (bus) bearing registration No. WGA/5410 and the same was attached to the Stage Carriage Permit on the route from Malda to Chanchal (1 up and 1 dn) and from Malda to Gangarampur (1 up and 1 dn). The respondent No. 2 as per notice issued under memo No. 1214 (5) M.V. dated September 7, 2005 invited applications from the intending owners of the vehicles having Stage Carriage Permit in their favour for addition curtailment or alteration of their routes. Pursuant to the above notice dated September 23, 2005 the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent No. 2 for changing alignment of the existing route attached to the above Stage Car...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Builders Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner challenges the award as being without jurisdiction in view of Clause 63(3)(a)(iii) of the General Conditions that governs railway contracts. The petitioner urges that even if such impressive ground does not found favour with court, the award should be set aside for being perverse and having transgressed into matters that are excepted by agreement between the parties.2. Before going into the matter, it may be noticed that there is substantial confusion created by the petitioner in its reliance on certain Clauses of the General Conditions. Several Clauses of the General Conditions that have been referred to in the counter-statement before the arbitrator appear to be completely inapposite, even on the basis of the book containing General Conditions that has been made over by the petitioner to court. It does not appear that some of the Clauses referred to bear any typographical mistake as the same reference is found in the minutes of the proceedings hel...