Kolkata Court August 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.
Alia Bibi Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN279
Tapan Mukherjee, J.1. This application under Section Cr.PC registered as C.R.R. No. 1803 of 2007 is directed against the order dated 10.4.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Berhampur in Criminal Revision No. 224 of 2006 affirming the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur in CR. No. 318 of 2006 refusing to issue search warrant for recovery of son aged 4 and 1/2 years of the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a legally married wife of O.P. No. 2, Amjad Hossain according to Mohammedan Law. In wedlock of the parties one son aged four and half years and one daughter aged 3 years were born. All the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 subjected the petitioner to cruelty and on 1.6.2007 the O.Ps' assaulted the petitioner and snatched her children from her custody and drove her out of their house. Then the father of the petitioner took her to his house. The O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 wrongfully confined the children of the petitioner. P.S. was informed. The petitioner filed petition of comp...
Airports Authority of India and ors. Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN77
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. Airports Authority of India has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge (Justice Pratap Kumar Ray) on 23rd February, 2007 in W.P. No. 8256 (W) of 2005 (Pradip Kumar Banerjee and Ors. v. Airports Authority of India and Ors.). By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order of suspension passed against respondent No. 1 with the further direction to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits within a month from the date of the order and to continue his salary allowances and service benefits in accordance with law.2. The substantial question of law which arises in this appeal is whether an employee acquitted by the Criminal Court of criminal charges would be automatically entitled to be reinstated in the service. Further, is the employer debarred from holding a departmental enquiry on the same allegations which formed the subject-matter of the criminal prosecutio...
Rama Pada Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN423
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge in this writ application is the resolution dated May 5, 2006 adopted in the meeting of the respondent No. 2 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to extend the period of producing the vehicle by the petitioner as mentioned in the offer letter.The facts in the case in a nutshell is this the Employment Officer-in-Charge of District Employment Exchange, Serampore, Hooghly as per his communication issued under memo No. SRP/SE-Auto/99/2000/97 dated June 21, 2006 informed the respondent No. 3 that the UCO Bank, Uttarpara Branch had sanctioned provisionally a loan proposal of the petitioner as a beneficiary under other Backward Classes for auto rickshaw under the SESRU Scheme (a self-employment scheme for unemployed youths) and requested him to issue route permit for plying auto-rickshaw in favour of the petitioner on priority basis.2. Since no such permit was issued in favour of the petitioner, he moved a writ application being W P No...
Mohd. AmIn Vs. Kausar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)3CALLT517(HC),2007(4)CHN785
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for challenging the propriety of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah, in Misc. Appeal No. 35 of 2007 affirming order being No. 24 dated 9th February, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 234 of 2005.2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming the following reliefs:(a) A decree of declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant and have exclusive right, title and interest over the suit property;(b) A decree of mandatory injunction for restraining the defendants and their men and agent for making disturbances/ inconveniences in enjoying the suit property.(c) Such other relief which the plaintiff is entitled under the law of equity.3. In such a suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for interim injunction for r...
Smt. Mina Deogun Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)117TTJ(Kol.)121
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee having been aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dt. 29th March, 2007 for the asst. yr. 2004-05 in the case of the assessee.2. The assessee has raised the following issues in its grounds of appeal: 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was unjustified in adopting the fair market value of the appellant's 1/4th share in the immovable property at 47, Golflinks, New Delhi at Rs. 15,02,907 as against Rs. 18,40,244 estimated by the Registered Valuer. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was unjustified in not striking down the reference to the Valuation Officer made by the AO under Section 55A of the Act and was not justified in upholding the reference under Section 55A(2)(b) even though the said provision was not applicable. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant having adopted the fair market value of the transferred immovable property as p...
Sanjoy Mitra and ors. Vs. Khalil Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN503
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Above two applications were filed on March 17, 2006 and March 21, 2007 respectively by the applicants, inter alia, praying for clarification and/or modification of my order dated February 14, 2006 for fixing an outermost time limit for compliance of the said order and to clarify whether by the said order dated February 14, 2006 I held the respondents guilty of Contempt of Court respectively.2. Judgment and order dated February 14, 2006 was passed by me, while disposing of a contempt proceeding being CPAN No. 1729 of 2005. By the said judgment and order I disposed of the contempt proceeding after holding that the respondents/contemnors therein from time to time not only misled this Court from one stage to the other but also attempted to withhold the process of consideration of the writ petitioners for employment in compassionate category of land losers despite orders of Court. Even after holding the same, I did not proceed as against them to punish them under ...
Sunil Pattanayek and ors. Vs. Ajit Pattanayek and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: 2007CriLJ4125
ORDERKalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 20-12-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Paschim Midnapur in Criminal Revision No. 344 of 2003 confirming the order dated 3-11-2003 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jhargram in M.R. case No. 236 of 2003 under Section 133 of the Cr. P.C. The case of the petitioners is that the O.P. No. 1-4 herein filed a case under Section 133, Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate alleging that there is a public pathway on plot No. 126, J. L. No. 208, Mouza-Gopiballavpur. It has been alleged in the petition under Section 133, Cr. P.C. that the present petitioners encroached upon the said public pathway. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 25-8-2003 directed the B. L. & L.R.O. Gopiballapur-I for causing an enquiry as to whether there is any encroachment. Pursuant to the said order an enquiry was held and report was submitted by B. L. & L.R.O., Gopiballavpur-...
Bimal Ghosh and ors. Vs. Smt. Kalpana Majumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Cal293,2008(1)ARBLR68(Cal)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Appellants are owners of a piece of land situated in the town of Siliguri in the District of Darjeeling measuring an area of 6 kathas, 9 chhataks. They entered into a development agreement with the respondent whereby it was agreed that the respondent, at her own cost, would construct a building on the said land in question out of which 40% of the constructed area would be handed over to the owners being the appellants and 60% would be retained by the respondent as her share in the property. Under the agreement, if there was any dispute between the parties, those disputes were to be referred to the sole arbitration of one Mr. Arun Kumar Sarkar, an advocate of Siliguri Court.2. The appellants also executed general Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent giving her right to do all acts necessary for the purpose of construction, development and sale of the flats after construction on behalf of the appellants. Accordingly, a five-storied building was constru...
Hindustan Copper Limited Vs. Utkal Mouldings Private Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN148
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two mandamus appeals were heard together as those are interlinked and are directed against the self-same order dated June 22, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship refused to extend the interim order earlier granted on April 18, 2007 on the writ application filed by the respondent No. 1 wherein the selection of National Small Industries Corporation Limited (NSIC) as a supplier of materials was challenged.2. Being dissatisfied, Hindustan Copper Limited, the Government company, who floated the process of tender, has preferred MAT No. 2400 of 2007 whereas the other appeal being MAT No. 2422 of 2007 has been filed by the NSIC.3. We propose to take up the appeal preferred by the Hindustan Copper Ltd. at the first instance.The following facts are not in dispute:(a) The appellant is the company wholly owned by the Government of India. It is a buyer of various items including grinding media balls from small-scale industries. On January 22,...
Bholanath Mondal and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN219
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This mandamus appeal is at the instance of unsuccessful writ petitioners and is directed against the order dated December 12, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writ application on the ground that serious disputed questions of fact were involved therein which could not be effectively decided in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of affidavits.2. The writ petitioners, two in number, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby praying for the following relief:a) To issue a writ of and/or writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 6 to act in accordance with the law and to quash and/or rescind the impugned notice issued on 2.12.02 being Annexure 'P-9' of this petition.b) To issue a writ of and/or writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 6 not to give any effect or further effect to the impugned not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »