Kolkata Court June 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.
Telecommunications Consultation (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Wes ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN769
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. Petitioners by filing an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought for quashing of the proceedings in case No. C-1917/06 now pending before the learned Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta Under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:Opposite party No. 2 as complainant filed an application Under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the ld. Court of CMM, Calcutta against the present petitioners and others.3. Ld. CMM, Calcutta by order dated 4th of March, 2006 took cognizance and thereafter by order dated 28th March, 2006 being prima facie satisfied on perusal of the petition of the complaint, affidavit and documents directed issuance of summons for the offences Under Section 138/141 of the NI Act upon all the accused persons.4. Allegations made in the said petition of complaint may briefly be stated as follows:Complainant is a p...
Dilip Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN278
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. Opposite party No. 2, R.K. Sethy, on the basis of information lodged FIR against the present petitioner being the Secretary, Nataraj Khadi Shilpa Samity, District-Bankura. It was alleged that the present petitioner and some other unknown persons entered into a criminal conspiracy with dishonest intention to cheat the Government of India and pursuant thereof, they had formed a Co-operative Society named as 'Natraj Khadi Shilpa Samity', Village & Post Office-Kakatia, District- Bankura and also at 16, Ichlabad Road, Burdwan. The said society was registered with the Government of West Bengal on January 02, 1982. They managed to obtain recognition as a 'Certified Institution' by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Government of India. It was alleged that the petitioner along with the said unknown persons managed to obtain interest free loan from the said Commission towards capital expenditure and working capital in order to produce 'Silk Khadi'. But they utilize...
Dilip Kumar Mondal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: (2007)3CALLT477(HC)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an unsuccessful applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and is directed against order dated July 13, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in O.A. No. 510 of 2005 thereby rejecting the application filed by the writ-petitioner by which he challenged the appointment of the private-respondent in the post of External Department Delivery Agent ('EDDA').2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present writ-application may be summed up thus:a) The names of the writ-petitioner and 12 other persons were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the purpose of filling up the post of EDDA. The writ-petitioner along with other candidates appeared before the selection-board and subsequently, one Kamal Sardar was appointed in the said post.b) The private-respondent in the past filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrativ...
Kulesh Chandra Mondal (D) Through His Legal Heir and Son (Sri) Bibek M ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR549]
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. Appellant (since deceased) was a Head-teacher of Krishnanagar Primary School in the district of Nadia. On the death of the said sole appellant, his son Shri Bibek Mondal was substituted as appellant.2. The original appellant/writ petitioner, Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) submitted an application before the respondent Council on 3rd March, 1997 for being declared lo be permanently disabled/incapacitated for life before attaining the age of 58 years. Inspite of submission of the said application, initially no medical board was constituted in order to examine the said Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) and subsequently pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 3rd October, 1997, medical board examined the said Shri Kulesh Chandra Mondal (since deceased) and declared him as permanently disabled on 10th December, 1997.3. Thereafter, the then Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee, Malda District Primary School Council by a written communicatio...
Aloke Kumar Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN144,2007CriLJ3098
ORDERP.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding being Special Case No. 2 of 1997 arising out of Haldibari P.S. Case No. 106/94 dated 1-10-1994 under Section 468/471/409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the I.P.C.) now pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Cooch Behar.2. Mr. Subir Banerjee, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was registered at Haldibari P.S. on 1-10-1994 and the charge sheet was submitted on 14-5-1997. On the basis of such charge sheet the Special Case No. 2 of 1997 is now pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge at Cooch Behar. Nearly 13 years have passed since the FIR was registered there was no step in the trial and not a single witness has yet been examined. The FIR was lodged by the Chairman of the Haldibari Municipality, and subsequently, the de facto complainant submitted a prayer before the Distric...
Rabindra Nath Halder Vs. Ajoy Kumar Debnath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN530
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order being No. 34, dated October 19, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore in Money Suit No. 2 of 2004 refusing the prayer of the petitioner/defendant No. 1 to frame two preliminary issues relating to jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that the O.P./ plaintiffs instituted the above suit for realization of Rs. 7 lakh towards advance (Rs. 5 lakh) for a flat, interest @ 18% p.a. and damages, as the O.P./defendant No. 1 failed to construct and hand over the flat in question within the stipulated period as per agreement. The petitioner after entering appearance filed a petition under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying for framing two issues on the question of jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit in view of the provisions of West Benga...
Sudesh Poddar Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN760
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application Under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr. PC is aimed at quashing the criminal proceeding being Misc. File No. 121/06 now pending before the learned Municipal-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta and is also directed against the order dated 5.3.2007 passed by the said learned Magistrate rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for dropping the proceeding against him in view of the provisions of Section 620 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter called the K.M.C. Act).2. Mr. Debabrata Roy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in this matter the Misc. File No. 121/06 now pending before the learned Magistrate arose out of Hare Street P.S. Case No. 159 dated 15.3.04 Section 401A of the K.M.C. Act. In view of the provisions of Section 620 of the said Act proceeding of trial of any offence punishable by or under the said Act can not be continued with except on the complaint of or upon information...
Partha Pratim Basak Vs. Arundhuti Basak
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN1032
P.N. Sinha, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 10.4.06 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter called the ACJM), Barrackpore in connection with Case No. M/195 of 2005 thereby allowing the application under Section 125 of the Cr. PC filed by the opposite party (in short the O.P.)/wife and granting her maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month for herself and @ Rs. 700/- per month for her minor son and directing the petitioner to pay maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr. PC.2. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, the learned Advocate for the petitioner husband submitted that the petitioner does computer repairing job and his income is very meagre. On 18.4.05, the O. P./wife left the matrimonial home and went away to her father's house. Since then the O.P. did not come back to husband's house in spite of repeated efforts made by the husband petitioner to take her back. The learned Magistrate wh...
Jamuna Chakraborty Vs. Sital Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN166
1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful applicant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in a regular title appeal and is directed against Order No. 66 dated January 05, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court at Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 245 of 1993 thereby rejecting the said application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. In our view, the present first miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable. According to Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a first miscellaneous appeal lies against an order under Order 39 Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The opening sentence of Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure starts with the phrase 'where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise...'. Therefore, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is applicable only to the suits. However, by virtue of the provisions...
State of W.B. and ors. Vs. Poly Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CHN699
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The stay application is taken up for hearing. The stay application with reference to the appeal arose out of the challenge of the judgment and order dated 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Trial Judge in WP No. 1423 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Judge passed a mandatory order directing issuance of the offer letter in the concerned route namely, Howrah New Bus Stand to Sealdah instead of the original route for which the application was filed for the route Howrah Station to Sealdah. In adjudicating the stay application we are of the view that the entire appeal could be disposed of on merit. Hence the appeal is taken up for final hearing. All formalities stands dispensed with.3. Parties have argued at length on the questions of fact and law as involved in the appeal. It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant before us that in view of the congestion of vehicles in the city of Kolkata and the nearby twin city ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »