Kolkata Court May 2007 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.
Nirmalendu Kamilya and ors. Vs. Ananta Kumar Payra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN782
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The petitioners by filing the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure have sought for transfer of the Title Appeal No. 4 of 2006 from the file of the learned Court of Additional District Judge, Contai, Purba Medinipore to the Hon'ble High Court.2. The backdrop of the present case may briefly stated as follows.3. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 7 filed the Title Suit No. 18 of 1974 in the learned Court of Subordinate Judge at Medinipore and Title Suit No. 53 of 1966 before the learned 2nd Court of Munsif at Contai against the petitioners. The petitioners again filed Title Suit No. 17 of 1974 before the learned 2nd Court of Subordinate Judge, Medinipore against the opposite parties.4. The above-mentioned suits were transferred to the learned 2nd Court of Assistant District Judge, Contai and the same were re-numbered as Title Suit No. 5 of 1989 (previously Title Suit No. 18 of 1974), Title Suit No. 56 of 1988 (previously Title Suit No. 53 of 19...
Jayanta Das Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN432,2007CriLJ2841
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. Appellant Jayanta Das preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court in the erstwhile district of Midnapore passed in connection with Sessions Trial No. VIII/July/1995.2. Jayanta Das being charged under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code was ultimately convicted by the learned trial Judge under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and he was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years more for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.3. The learned Judge also directed to pay the entire fine amount, if realized, to Puti, the minor daughter of the deceased.4. Jayanta D...
Ratan Das Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN1059,2007CriLJ3307
ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. This petition is the fourth episode of a seemingly unending saga. The petitioner's wife applied under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) alleging that the petitioner had committed rape on her. After commitment the matter was set down for trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour. The petitioner applied under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code before this Court. The proceedings were not quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code but 'the matter was transferred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Baruipur. Such order came to be made on the petitioner claiming that it would be inconvenient for him to attend the distant Diamond Harbour Court and on the basis of his apprehension for his security in Diamond Harbour. By the order of transfer of February 13, 2007, this Court required the recording of evidence to be taken up on March 17, 2007.2. O...
Lords Distillery Ltd. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Cal)66,[2007]294ITR147(Cal)
Soumitra Pal, J.1. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered company having its registered office in Kolkata and the petitioner No. 2 is one of its directors. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 on 14th Nov., 2006 had served a notice under Section 127 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), intimating about the proposed transfer of the case under Section 127 of the Act for the reasons enumerated therein and had invited objections. The petitioner company filed a written objection. An opportunity of hearing was granted by the CIT, Kolkata-IV, the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, in exercise of powers under Section 127(1)/(2) of the Act on 30th Nov., 2006, order was passed transferring the case of the petitioners from Asstt. CIT, Circle-XI, Kolkata, to Dy. CIT, Central Circle, XIX, New Delhi. The said order of transfer is the subject-matter of challenge.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the notice proposing transfer was general in nature, vague and ambiguous, was issued mechanically...
Anandamay Bag Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN470
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 19.10.2006 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly in S.T. No. 10 of 2003 thereby rejecting the prosecution prayer under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for holding DNA test of the victim, the accused and the male child born to the victim.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in this case the victim was a minor and due to the alleged rape committed on her by the accused she became pregnant and gave birth to a male child who is now aged about 5 years. Concerning the incident of rape, the FIR was lodged at Polba P.S. and after investigation chargesheet was submitted. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, trial also progressed and the case was pending for judgment. During that stage the learned P.P. in-charge of the case filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for direction for holding the DNA test of th...
Jagdish Prasad Tulshan, Since Deceased Saroj Agarwalla Vs. Yasheel Jai ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Cal218,2007(3)CHN27
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal was heard along with a cross-objection filed by the respondent and those arise out of an application for grant of Probate in which the learned Single Judge by the order impugned has refused to discharge the caveat lodged by the respondent.2. It appears from the record that the appellant, the propounder of the Will, allegedly executed by one Jagdish Prasad Tulshan, happens to be the only surviving sister of the testator at the time of his death. She prayed for grant of the Probate of the Will alleged to have been executed by Jagdish. In such proceedings, the respondent, namely, Yasheel Jain, who is the son of a predeceased sister of the testator, lodged a caveat claiming that he had interest in the estate of the deceased on two-fold grounds. First, he was the nephew of the testator and secondly, he was the sole beneficiary under an alleged prior Will executed by the testator in respect of the self-same estate.3. The learned Single Judge by the orde...
Biswanath Patra Vs. Divisional Engineer (E) S and Lp and State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Cal189,2007(2)CHN657
Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in Court today, be kept on record.2. This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for quashing of proceedings arising out of Taldanga P.S. Case No. 44 of 2004 dated 9th October, 2004 under Section 135(i)(c) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding G.R. Case No. 234 of 2004 pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khatra, Bankura.3. From the case made out by the petitioner in the present application and after having heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, it appears that there are two questions of law involved in the instant case. These are:(1) Whether the Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Electricity Act, 2003 upon a ...
Siddhartha Kumar Biswas Vs. Ruby Mukherjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN18
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract and other consequential relief and is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 29, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 9th Court, Alipur, District South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 70 of 1997 thereby passing a part decree in favour of the plaintiff.2. In the said suit, the basic prayer of the appellant before the Court was to pass a decree for specific performance of contract and in the said suit, several other relief were claimed. The entire prayer portion of the plaint is quoted below:a) A decree for specific performance of contract directing the first defendant and the second defendant to execute and register the conveyance for sale in favour of the plaintiff for transferring of the undivided 1/8 of the land as described in schedule 'A' hereto and the flat being number 3 as described in schedule 'B' hereto together with ...
Pankaj Madhogarhia Vs. State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN215
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.1. The petitioner files this writ application for a direction upon the respondent to mutate his name as lessee in respect of Plot No. 44 Block-C/D, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064. Since a point of law is involved in this matter, this matter is taken up for final disposal. The aforesaid plot of land was allotted in favour of one Dhirendra Nath Mondal (since deceased) by executing a deed of lease dated June 9th, 1982 for 999 years by the State Government. The aforesaid Dhirendra Nath Mondal made his last Will and testament dated October 11th, 2005. The petitioner was made sole beneficiary in respect of the unexpired period of lease-hold interest in respect of the aforesaid land by virtue of the above Will. After the expiry of the aforesaid Dhirendra Nath Mondal on November 16th, 2005, the executor of his last Will and testament dated October 11th, 2005 obtained probate in respect of the above Will. Thereafter the petitioner deposited all requisite fees on...
Jagdish Prasad Tulshan Since Deceased Saroj Agarwalla Vs. Malati Tulsh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN563
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is at the instance of a propounder in the proceedings for grant of probate and is directed against the order dated April 26, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship dismissed an application for discharge of caveat filed by the present appellant.2. The appellant before us as an executrix filed an application for grant of probate of the alleged last Will and Testament of one Jagdish Prasad Tulshan. In the said proceeding, the respondent before us, claiming to be the second wife of the testator, lodged a caveat. The appellant before us subsequently filed an application for discharge of the said caveat on the ground that the respondent was never married to the testator and as such, she had no caveatable interest in the matter.3. In the application for caveat, it was specifically mentioned that the respondent was married to the testator on 28th February, 1986.4. There is, however, no dispute that in the body of the al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »