Kolkata Court January 2008 Judgments
Smt. Snehalata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT297(HC)
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The petitioner in the instant criminal revisional application along with others has been facing her trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 4th Court, Krishnagar, Nadia of a charge under Section 14A of the Foreigners Act. During the course of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for pleading guilty. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application, hence this criminal revision.2. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Judge rejected the application of the petitioner, whereby she intends to plead guilty on the following grounds:(a) The charge has already been framed and the trial is the midst of recording of evidence.(b) At the time of framing charge the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.(c) It is the absolute discretion of the Court to accept or not to accept the plea of guilty.(d) The decisions relied upon on behalf...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishnendu Narayan Chowdhury Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN1041,2008CriLJ1691
ORDERAshim Kumar Roy, J.1. Aggrieved by an order of dismissal of the complaint relating to the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/323/324/325/326/500/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, who happened to be the Superintendent of Police, Malda, and the Additional Superintendent of Police, Malda at that material point of time, the petitioner moved the instant Criminal Revision.2. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that the said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Court below on the ground that the alleged act committed by the accused police officers were reasonably connected with their official duty and thus, in terms of provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, previous sanction is necessary for their prosecution and there was no sanction in terms thereof.3. Thus in the instant criminal revision the only point fell for decisions whether the alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Global Fashions International and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN256
Soumitra Pal, J.1. In the writ application the petitioner has challenged the show-cause notice dated 29th August, 2007 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the corrigendum dated 26th September, 2007 and has prayed for release of the imported goods.2. The petition was moved on 11th October, 2007 when directions were issued for filing of affidavits. In the said order it was recorded that if the petitioner applied for release of the goods on provisional assessment of duties, the concerned authority should consider the same and dispose of such application within a period of three weeks in accordance with law.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the learned Single Judge on 11th October, 2007 had directed release of the goods on provisional assessment of duties, the respondent No. 3 did not bring it to the notice of the Court that the said respondent had passed an order in original making the final assessment on 8th October, 2007 which, according to the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Deepak Sharma Vs. Smt. Vineeta Sharma (Nee Dubey)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal55,(2008)1CALLT324(HC),2008(3)CHN440
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 4 dated 17th September, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge at Alipore in Mat. Suit No. 1420 of 2007, whereby an application filed jointly by the parties under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for relaxing the six months restricted period as prescribed under Section 28(2) of the Special Marriage Act for moving the motion by the parties for the second time and thereby inviting the Court to pass a decree for divorce on mutual consent before expiry of six months restricted period, was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.2. The propriety of such an order is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of the petitioner No. l (husband).3. Let me give the short background of this case under which such an application was filed jointly by the parties before the learned Trial Judge.4. Admittedly the marriage between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Goel Vs. Dwinderpal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT429(HC),2008(1)CHN994
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 85 dated 25th September, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 409 of 1996, whereby the application of the defendant No.3/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.2. The propriety of such an order is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of the defendant No. 3/petitioner herein.3. The defendant No.3/petitioner is a pendente lite transferee in respect of one of the suit properties from some of the co-owners.4. The suit in which the impugned order was passed, is a suit for partition of various properties situated in Delhi as well as in Kolkata including certain joint family businesses. The defendant No. 3 who was a pendente lite transferee, was impleaded in the suit as defendant un...
Tag this Judgment!Rabindra Nath Maity and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT107(HC)
Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1989 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. XII of April, 1989, G.R. No. 300 of 1986, Tamluk, convicting the accused/appellants under Section 498A and 306 IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months more under Section 498A IPC and to suffer R.I. for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months more under Section 306 IPC with the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.2. Khudiram Khan lodged F.I.R. with the Panskura P.S. alleging that his daughter Kabita Maity was married with Rabindra Nath Maity of Kumarara village. As the informant could not deliver the dowry articles as stipulated, the husband of the victim, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law used to commit torture upon the victim physically and menta...
Tag this Judgment!Rahat Ali and ors. Vs. Tapan Kumar Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN108
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of a claimants and is directed against the order dated 23rd December, 1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 6th Court, Alipore, District 24-Parganas (South) in M.A.C. Case No. 409 of 1989 thereby allowing an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act by giving compensation of Rs. 32,400/- as the total loss sustained by the family of the deceased. The Tribunal below further granted interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum provided there is default in payment of the amount within a specified date.2. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come up with the present appeal.3. There is no dispute that the appellants before us are the parents and the brothers and sisters of the victim who died of an accident at the age of 19 years. He was in a bus, which was hit by a lorry at the rear portion, and consequently, he died. The father of the victim deposed as PW-1 and asserted that the victim was a cleaner of t...
Tag this Judgment!Yograj Gurung Vs. Aikon Network Marketing Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN396
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff against Order No. 6 dated July 6, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri, in a suit for partition and for recovery of possession.2. The plaintiff/appellant instituted Title Suit No. 18 of 2006, inter alia, seeking a preliminary decree for partition declaring plaintiff's share of .08 decimals of land described in the schedule 'B' to the plaint, final decree for partition and separate possession according to the report of the partition commissioner, recovery of possession in respect of .05 decimals in R.S. Plot No. 406 as described in schedule 'C' to the plaint.3. It is alleged in the plaint that Kharga Bahadur Gurung, the father of the plaintiff, and Madhumaya Gurung, the grandmother of the plaintiff, were the recorded owners of the land appertaining to Revenue Settlement Khatian No. 413 of mouza Siliguri in the district of Darjeeling. They had 5 annas and 2 gandas shares each in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Das Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-2008
Reported in: [2008(117)FLR484]
K.J. Sengupta and Prasenjit Mandal, JJ.1. Leave given to file Supplementary Affidavit and I he same is kept with record. In spite of service, none appears to oppose this application.This application is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th September, 2001. By the judgment and order impugned, the applicant's application, for granting promotional benefit on reinstatement, after order of dismissal being set aside and consequential benefits for promotion order, was rejected.2. The short fact of the case, for which the application was filed before the learned Tribunal is set out hereunder:The applicant was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist on 12th February, 1965 by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Bankura Range. He was implicated in a criminal prosecution on or about 1972 and consequent thereupon, he was placed under suspension. The charge in the criminal prosecution was under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and he was ultimately convicted. Naturally, the applicant was dism...
Tag this Judgment!Promodh Jha Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(1)CHN710
Kishore Kumar Prasad, J.1. The petitioner-accused Promodh Jha residing at village Absar within the limits of Washaliganj, Dist-Nowda, Bihar has filed this application for bail under Section 439 of Cr. PC in connection with T. R. Case No. 20/2007 arising out of Bally P.S. case No. 216/07 dated 6.8.07 under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, pending before Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act, Howrah (A.D.J., 3'1 Court, Howrah).2. As per prosecution version, 100 kgs. of 'Bhang' in four gunny bags was recovered from the possession of the petitioner-accused on 6.8.07 at about 12.35 hrs, near Bamurdanga Bridge within the limits of Bally police station when he was travelling in a bus bearing No. WB-78-9297 styled as 'Sangita' from Dunkuni side on N. H. 2 (Delhi Road). For that recovery, the petitioner along with three others namely the two drivers of the bus and the manager/conductor of the bus, all residing in different districts of Bihar, was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »