Kolkata Court March 2008 Judgments

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Santi Ranjan Dutta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009ACJ2398,AIR2008Cal106,2008(2)CHN985

Bhaskar Bhattacharta, J.1. When an application in connection with this first miscellaneous appeal preferred against an award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, came up for hearing, Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, contended that this appeal is first required to be heard under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before any application is taken up for hearing. In this connection, he relied upon an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kananbala Biswas v. Union of India in F.M.A.T. No. 2362 of 2007. By the said decision, the Division Bench held that in view of the provision of Chapter V Rule 17(b) of the Appellate Side Rules, this type of appeals are required to be heard under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code; in the judgment, however, no detailed discussion has been made why this type of appeal is required to face hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code. Mr. Bhattacharjee, who al...

Pasupati Paul Vs. Rash Behari Paul and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant viz. Pasupati Paul, against the judgment dated 11th June, 2001 of the Second Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge at Barasat, North 24 Parganas, in original suit No. 2 of 1994 granting letters of administration over the estate of Kalipada Paul @ Kali Charan Paul by virtue of his Will dated 21st March 1983.2. The case of the original petitioner, Kanan Bala Paul, the predecessor of the present petitioners in the Court below is that the said Kalipada Paul @ Kali Charan Paul executed his last Will written in Bengali on 21st March, 1983 and he died ultimately on 26th January, 1988 at Chittaranjan Medical College & Hospital, Calcutta - 14 while living at Natagarh, Ram Krishna Sarada Road, P.S. Khardah, Dist. North 24 Parganas. He left behind the original petitioner, namely, Kanan Bala Paul, his second wife, as the executrix of the Will and the four sons and two daughters through such second wife an...

Smt. Shyamarani Garg and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

S.P. Talukdar, J.1. This relates to an application under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Petitioners, by filing this application, sought for quashing of the proceedings of G. R. Case No. 1131 of 2004 now pending before the learned Court of S.D.J.M., Howrah. It arises out of Malipanchghora Police Station Case No. 55 of 2004 dated 29.4.2004 under Sections 406/420/467/468/469/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Grievances of the petitioners may briefly be stated as follows:The business of Premier Engineering Works situated at 194/1/7, G.T. Road (North), Shalkia, Howrah, has two units. The petitioner No. 1 and the husband of O.P. No. 2, since deceased and others were its partners. The petitioner No. 1's son, namely, Rakesh Garg used to look after the business in absence of O.P. No. 2 and her late husband. They were voluntarily entrusted with the care of the said business. The husband of O.P. No. 2 since retired from partnership agreement leaving o...

Paresh Chandra Kar and ors. Vs. the State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN757

S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present two Revisional Applications under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being directed against the same proceedings, were heard together in response to the submission made by learned Counsel for the parties as well as for the sake of convenience. The backdrop of the cases may briefly be stated as follows:As far back as on 11th November, 1987, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Birbhum, lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of the Suri Police Station, District Birbhum. It was in respect of information about defalcation of Government money amounting to Rs. 4.94 lakhs from the erstwhile D.H.O's office at Suri, Birbhum. During the audit done by the officer of the Accountant General, West Bengal on and from 11th of March, 1987 to 13th of March, 1987 and between the 2nd April, 1987 to 30th April, 1987, it was found that a huge amount of Government money to the extent of Rs. 4.94 lakhs had been drawn fraudulent...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ambica Construction

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN949

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Parties to the above appeal entered into an arbitration agreement to resolve their disputes. The Arbitrator published a non-speaking award which was made subject-matter of challenge in this Court. This Court directed the Arbitrator to assign reasons. The matter was remanded back to the Arbitrator on that score. The Arbitrator thereafter supplied reasons in support of his award. The appellant filed an application for setting aside of the said award challenging the reasons so supplied by the Arbitrator in terms of the direction of this Court. It was contended in the said application that the respondent/contractor having received payment in full and final settlement of its claim was not entitled to raise any claim before the Arbitrator. It was also urged that the claims made by the respondent/contractor were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. The learned Single Judge by His Lordship's well versed judgment rejected the contentions of the appellant sa...

Himadri Chemicals and Industries Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN740

1. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant at length. Undoubtedly, the guarantee executed by the appellant is unconditional in nature. We may make a reference here to the bank guarantee in which the bank has unconditionally agreed to honour the same. The said bank guarantee reads as under:We Central Bank of India, Kolkata Main Office, 33, Netaji Subhas Raod, Kolkata-700001, registered under the laws of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter called the Bank which expression shall include its successors and assigns) hereby undertake to pay the Corporation in rupees forthwith on first demand in writing and without protest or demur or proof or condition any and all moneys anywise claimed by the Corporation from the Contractor under, in respect of or in connection with the said contract as specified in any notice of demand made by the Corporation on the bank with reference to this undertaking upto an aggregate limit of Rs. 11,73,000 (Rupees e...

Md. Raja Alias Raju Etc. Vs. State of W.B.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ410

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. These appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 14th September 2004 and 15th September 2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Calcutta, in Sessions Trial No. 2(3) of 2004 arising out of Sessions Case No. 28 of 2004 convicting the appellant Md. Raja alias Raju for offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Md. Islam alias Chattu was convicted under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Md. Raja was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 489C of the Indian Penal Code. Both the ...

Bimalendu Ghose Vs. Smt. Mukti Ghosh

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT63(HC)

Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee, J.1. This review application is at the instance of the petitioner who was also the petitioner in connection with CO. No. 1478 of 2001. By filing the instant review application, the petitioner prayed for reviewing the order dated 26th March, 2007 passed in connection with the above mentioned CO.2. The fact leading to filing of the Instant review application may be summed up thus:i) That the present petitioner filed one matrimonial suit against his wife who is opposite party in the instant application being matrimonial suit No. 27 of 1977 before the Learned District Judge, Medinipur for decree of divorce. The present opposite party contested the said case by filing written statement wherein she denied all the allegations made in the said plaint (petition).ii) By order dated 29th February 1980, the Learned Trial Judge dismissed the said matrimonial suit (matrimonial suit No. 27 of 1977).iii) Against that order, the present petitioner filed appeal being F.A No. 1...

Pritam Rooj Vs. University of Calcutta and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2008Cal118

ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. An examinee has come a knocking imploring that he be granted another look at his answered paper, citing a statute standing on the bedrock of a right ordained unto every citizen by the Constitution. The only question, one of some importance, that is raised in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether an examinee has access to his evaluated answerscript under the Right to Information Act, 2005.2. The petitioner appears to be a reasonably meritorious student. He obtained 91.6 per cent in his Madhyamik (Class X) Examinations and 80.8 per cent in his Higher Secondary (Class XII) Examinations, fie enrolled for the mathematics honours course of the Calcutta University in Presidency College where admission itself is an acknowledgment of merit. In 2006, the petitioner took his Part I Bachelor's degree examinations and secured a somewhat modest 52 per cent score. In the following year he appeared for his Part II Examinations and secured 208 ...

A.K.B. Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sri Sri Lakshmi Janard ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT567(HC)

Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.2. The facts of the case, very, briefly, are that the opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 133 of 2003 against the petitioner and the proforma opposite party praying inter alia for a declaration that a certain deed of lease is void, inoperative, fraudulent, collusive and forged and that the compensation awarded in respect of the property included in the said deed of lease should be awarded entirely in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite parties and that the defendant/petitioner has no right to claim any share in the said compensation amount. The plaintiffs/opposite parties also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant/petitioner from receiving any part of the aforesaid compensation amount which has since been deposited in the Court of the learned District Judge, Suri in connection with the pending LA Case No. 89 of 2001. The sum and substance of the allegations made in the pla...