Kolkata Court February 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.
Nawratam Purohit Vs. Arvind Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal70,2008(2)CHN797
ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. Neither the insolvent nor the creditor at whose behest the insolvency proceedings were launched are represented even at the second call. Affidavits have been used both by the insolvent and the creditor at whose behest the debtor was declared insolvent.2. The order declaring the debtor insolvent was made on June 13, 1995 and after recording the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the following finds mention in the order:Having considered the submission made by Mr. Utpal Bose, the learned Counsel appearing for the creditor and after going through the petition and relevant sections of the Provincial Insolvency Act, I hold that the creditor has made out his case and the debtor Mr. Arvind Agarwal is to be adjudicated as an insolvent. Therefore upon considering the Insolvency Petition and after hearing the learned Counsels, it is ordered that the debtor Arvind Agarwal of 42A, C.R. Avenue, Calcutta be and is hereby adjudged an insolvent. It is further ordered...
Salkia Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pratap Properties Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN466
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The added defendant petitions for the suit to be dismissed on the grounds that the plaint relating thereto discloses no cause of action and the suit is barred by law. In effect, the parties quibble over their rights as to large tracts of valuable land in commercial Howrah.2. The narration of events has to begin with a reference to Suit No. 85 of 1984 wherein the plaintiffs' claim in such suit was discharged upon satisfaction in that regard being recorded by an order of November 27, 1991. The plaintiffs in the 1984 suit carried on business under the name and style of 'Himalayan) Trade Links' (hereinafter referred to as Himalayan. Himalayan had given a loan to Katihar Jute Mills Limited, the first defendant in the 1984 suit (hereinafter referred to as Katihar). Morgan Walker & Company Limited, the second defendant in the 1984 suit (hereinafter referred to as Morgan), had guaranteed repayment of the loan obtained by Katihar from Himalayan. Himalayan sued both the pri...
Tarun Kumar Roy Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN14
Aniruddha Bose, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Department of Food and Supplies, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur dated 20th December, 2007. By this order two licenses held by the petitioner under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 and the West Bengal Keroseno Control Order, 1968 have been terminated.2. Today, along with the writ petition, an application being CAN No. 789 of 2008 has also been moved. In this application, the applicants claim to be ration card holders connected to the petitioner's ration shop and it is contended by them that it was at their complaint the composite proceeding was initiated, On the strength of being the original complainants at whose instance the proceeding against the petitioner was initiated, the applicants' prayer is for being added as party respondents to this proceeding. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, I am s...
Pramod Kumar Bajaj Vs. Shew Ratan Bajan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN800
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Two of the defendants seek leave to amend the written statement filed on their behalf in this suit for partition and administration and include a counter claim therein. The proposed counter claim is directed both against the plaintiff and some of the other defendants, who attempt to resist it on the principal ground that it would change the nature and character of the suit and bring within its fold issues that a partition suit cannot accommodate.2. No preliminary decree has yet been made but the opposing parties remind of the principle recognised in Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that a counter claim may not be received if the cause of action indicated therein is one that arose after the date of filing of the written statement or after the time within which the written statement was required to be filed. The applicants claim that tenants and rank trespassers had been inducted into premises no. 6A, Balmukund Mackar Road, Calcutta - 700007 w...
Atul Daga Vs. Official Liquidator, High Court of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Reported in: [2008]88SCL47(Cal)
ORDER1. It appears that in this matter the Hon'ble Court passed an order on 24-8-2007 when the appellant/petitioner sought for deletion of the names of the appellant as a respondent in the misfeasance proceedings on the ground that the appellant was not informed in the day to day management of the company prior to its liquidation and the appellant was not a director of the company on the date of the winding up and there was no participation by the appellant in the meetings of the company. The Court at that point of time passed an order that such statement cannot be accepted without verifying the same and liberty was granted to the appellant to urge all grounds taken in the said application. It appears subsequent thereto just after seven days that is on 31-8-2007 statement of affairs was filed by the Managing Director and after accepting the said statement of affairs court dropped the complaint as against the second accused and also against the other accused. Since Court found out that ...
Md. Mizan and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN468
Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-4, Raghunathpur in Sessions Trial No. 2(1) of 2003 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 63 of 2000 convicting thereby the appellants under Section 363 IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year. Appellant Md. Mizan has been convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one year under Section 366A IPC. No separate sentence was passed by the learned Trial Judge against convict Niamul Hoque under Section 366A IPC. The appellant Md. Mizan has also been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one and half years under Section 376 IPC with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.2. The pros...
Sudhir Mahato and Birbal Mahato and Prabir Alias Bura Mahato Vs. State ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT103(HC)
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This Death reference bearing No. 2 of 2006, Criminal Appeal bearing No. 647 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal bearing No. 671 of 2006 arose out of a common judgment and order dated 28th August, 2006 and 29th August, 2006 passed by Biswanath De, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jhargram in Sessions Trial No. XVIII of May 2006 convincing the appellants under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the order dated 29th August, 2006. All the appellants were punished with imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 364. The appellants were inflicted death sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and they were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The death reference has naturally been made for confirmation of the death sentence. The Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 2006 is at the instanc...
Dwarka Nath Pyne Vs. Abhijit Sanyan and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-2008
Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT206(HC)
Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order, being Order No. 109 dated 10th August, 2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Alipore, District - South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 336 of 1995.3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, being the defendant No. 2, in the Title Suit No. 336 of 1995, pending before the learned Court below submits that while hearing out the two interlocutory applications of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, both under the provision of Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the learned Judge had made certain observations in the order impugned which were beyond the scope of Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, as coming to a definitive finding with regard to the end of tenant-landlord relationship of the petitioner herein ...
Pawan Kumar Tibrewalla and anr. Vs. J. Thomas and Co. (Pvt.) Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN49
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The advocate commissioner's assessment of mesne profits is assailed by both sets of parties: to a larger extent by the defendant on the monthly rate arrived at; and, to a lesser extent by the plaintiffs on the count of interest. The defendant vacated the Lord Sinha Road building flat on October 31, 1999, having overstayed its invitation by some eight years after the expiry of the tenure covered by the lease. The inquiry into mesne profits of the third floor flat on one of the older highrises in the city was pursuant to a direction of court. The suit premises include an apartment with a carpet area of about 1804 sq.ft. which works out to a super built-up area of about 2405 sq.ft. In addition to the enjoyment of the flat came the servants' quarters of floor area of 60 sq.ft. translating to a super built-up area of 75 sq.ft. and a covered car parking space to accommodate a decent-sized car.2. Under the lease of January 16, 1965, the defendant was required to pay mont...
Tapas Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT499(HC)
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. We have heard the petitioner in person, who is an Advocate of this Court. He has filed this writ petition purportedly claiming to be in public interest. He has submitted that the book fair which is scheduled to be held with effect from 15th March, 2008 till 10th March, 2008 at Salt Lake City would not be in public interest.2. We have perused the writ petition. We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition does not disclose any cause of action to enable the petitioner to present the writ petition as a public interest litigation. The petitioner has vehemently argued that outside the stadium where the Book Fair is scheduled to be held would be an abuse of the stadium which is reserved for the exclusive use of the sportsmen. In support of the submissions the petitioner has relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J. Jayalalitha v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in (1991)1 SCC 53. We have perused the aforesaid Judgment. We are of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »