Kolkata Court January 2008 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.
Pralay Karmakar and ors. Vs. Uttara Co-operative Housing Society Limit ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT251(HC)
Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.1. This revisional application under Article 227 challenges the impugned order dated May 10, 2007 passed by West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No. 30 of 2006.2. The Uttara Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., the O.P. No. 1 was constituted and registered under the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940, in the year 1971. The said Housing Co-operative Society purchased plot No. 13, Broad Street, Calcutta - 700 019 measuring 61 cottahas 6 chittaks from Manmatha Nath Mukherjee and others along with 'thika' tenancy of Manik Lal Karmakar who was running a garage thereof occupying a substantial portion of the land, by a registered deed of purchase dated 30.11.74. Ultimately, upon the vesting of interest of superior landlord with the State the said Manik Lal Karmakar began to deposit the rent before the Thika Controller'. In the year 1976 the said housing society asked Manik Lal Karmakar to vacate the suit land over which a title suit was filed by Manik Lal ...
Asura Bibi Vs. Setara Bibi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT252(HC),2008(3)CHN1029
Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. The petitioner by filing the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution has sought to assail order No. 62 dated 11th September, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, 2nd Court (Jr. Divn.), Malda in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2003.2. The said Misc. case arose out of an application under Section 204 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. The O.P. No. 1, as petitioner, before the learned Trial Court, challenged the election of the O.P. No. 1 in respect of seat No. 9, Gangaprasad Gram Panchayat under Kaliachak P.S. and sought for a declaration that such election was void.3. It was claimed that the present petitioner did not attain the age of 21 years and as such, she could not be so elected as the Member of the Gram Panchayat. It was further alleged that attention of the concerned authority was drawn to this but to no avail. The present O.P. No. 1, thus, prayed for declaring her as elected for the said seat, as she got the second highest vote.4. ...
Nani Gopal Kar Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT257(HC)
Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned order dated 06.03.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Court at Diamond Harbour granting interim maintenance of Rs. 500/-per month to the baby Tapaswini, the daughter of the O.P. No. 2 herein. The case of the petitioner herein, in short, is that he is a very poor man, earning his livelihood as a day labourer in different areas of Burdwan, North 24 Parganas, Howrah and Kolkata. Taking advantage of the simplicity of the petitioner, the O.P. No. 2 herein filed a complaint case which was registered as G.R. case No. 1276 of 2004, Pathar Pratima P.S. case No. 57 dated 04.10.2004 under Sections 376/420/493/120B/504/506 I.P.C. against the petitioner herein, his father, mother, elder brother, his wife i.e. the members of the family of the petitioner with different self-contradictory allegations. There was no marriage of the petitioner herei...
Satyajit Maity and anr. Vs. R.S.S. Bricks Works (Brand Deep) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)3CALLT504(HC)
Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. Order No. 15 dated 11.5.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) at Amta, Howrah in Title Suit No. 118/05 is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:Opposite parties, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and accounts before the learned Trial Court. In it, the plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties as described in the schedule of the plaint originally belonged to Asutosh Maji. On 14.5.2002, he transferred a portion of the property in favour of his son, Sri Brojogapal Maji being the defendant No. 3 by way of registered Deed of Gift being No. 799 for the year 2002, On 17.5.2002, said Asutosh Maji further transferred his remaining portion of the properties in favour of his two sons, namely, Benimadhav Maji and Shyamsundar Maji, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 by way of two separate Deeds of Gift in the year 2002. By vi...
Joydeep Mukherjee and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN546
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. These writ petitions were filed as Public Interest Litigations challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of about 1000 acres of land within the following mouzas, a) Gopalnagar, b) Singherbheri, c) Beraberi, d) Khaserberi and e) Bajemelia within the Police Station of Singur in the District of Hooghly.2. Such acquisition process has been challenged by the writ petitioners mainly on the ground that the said area of land is the source of livelihood of 10,000 agricultural households and destroying the most of fertile lands which cannot be replaced, apart from the other subsidiary industries.3. The writ petitioners challenged the entire acquisition process on the ground of mala fide and arbitrary intention and further for violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that for setting up a Small Car Project by Tatas would have been an acquisition of land following the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (here...
State of West Bengal and ors. Vs. Sabita Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN226
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. All these three appeals involve identical question of fact and law and as such are disposed by this common judgment.2. The facts are almost identical in all these three cases. The respondents' properties were requisitioned by the State under Section 3 of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act II). The properties were taken over possession in 1967, 1975 and 1979 respectively. In all three cases the State also intended to acquire the said lands under Section 4 of Act II and issued respective notices on January 01.02.1981, March 07, 1981 and July 26, 1983 respectively.3. As per the Act II the State was entitled to take possession of any land in question by requisitioning the said property in exchange of payment of rental compensation. However, if any requisitioned land was required by the State and State intended to acquire the same the State was entitled to issue necessary notice under Section 4(1a). After s...
Sanatan Burman Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-2008
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR1118]
K.J. Sengupta and Partha Sakha Datta, JJ.1. No one has appeared on behalf of State. This matter is heard with the able assistance of Mr. Bag.2. This application is directed against the judgment and order of the learned State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 8th, August, 2006, whereby and whereunder the applicant's challenge against the order of punishment of dismissal as well as the disciplinary proceeding have been upheld.3. The fact of the case is that the applicant was a Police Constable and he was charge sheeted with the charges, summary of which is set out hereunder:4. The applicant was summoned for attending night patrol duty and he did not turn up although other police personnel did. When again he was called, he turned up wearing a Paijama only keeping other portion of the body bare. Then the applicant was asked to come back in uniform. Subsequently, he turned up in uniform, but in a drunken state and when he was asked, he started abusing t...
Tarak Chandra Roy Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT240(HC),2008(2)CHN973
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The matter has been referred to a Division Bench by the learned single Judge by order dated 1st December, 2005. The question specifically posed by the learned single Judge is as follows:After the School Service Commission Act, 1997 came into force would the appointees get the benefit of the higher scale of pay despite being interviewed and selected in pass category.3. The petitioner is a post graduate degree holder in Physical Education. In 1998 the West Bengal School Service Commission conducted a selection test for Physical Education teachers. It appears from the advertisement that - there was no vacancy in the post of Honours Graduate/Post Graduate teacher. There had been a selection test only in pass category. The petitioner appeared in the said examination and got employment in pass category. The petitioner accepted such appointment. Thereafter, in 2003 the petitioner again appeared in another Regio...
Amala Shankar and ors. Vs. Mandira Kar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT285(HC)
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The Applicant seeks to clamber on board on her apprehension that the present defendants have lost interest and will present a cakewalk for the plaintiffs to undeservingly establish title over the subject film. The plaintiffs resist the applicant's attempt to be impleaded on divers counts, the foremost of them being that there is no right that the applicant can assert over the film.2. The heirs of danseur Uday Shankar question, in the suit, a gift of the film made by the maestro by a registered document. On an interlocutory application an order was made on September 26, 2000 restraining the defendants from creating any third party right over the said film without leave of Court. Such order is subsisting.3. The applicant asserts that she entered into an agreement with the first defendant on February 2, 2002 by which the first defendant agreed to transfer or assign her rights in respect of the said film for valuable consideration in favour of the applicant. Two claus...
Dipankar Pramanik Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1584
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In this appeal the appellant challenged his conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default clause as well as his conviction under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows,On December 24, 2004 at about 12 mid night while complainant Marami Sardar with her two years son were sleeping in her bed room. The appellant Dipankar Paramanick, one of her neighbourer entered into her bedroom by breaking the fence of her house. The appellant was recognized by her in the light of the lamp burning inside the said room. On that day both of her husband and father-in-law were at Calcutta in connection with their regular job. The appellant after entering inside the room at the point of a knife he was in his hand threatened to kill her and her son and restrained her to raise an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »