Kolkata Court March 2008 Judgments

Shambhunath Das Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT86(HC),2008(2)CHN760

Girish Chandra Gupta. J 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 15th February 2002 passed by Shri Indrajit Chatterjee, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Diamond Harbour in Sessions Trial No. 9(10) of 2001 arising out of Sessions Case No. 16(6) of 2001 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was also charged under Section 364 but as against that charge he has been acqu...

Haru Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT114(HC)

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The death reference and the appeal arose out of an order dated 16th May 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nabadwip in Sessions Trial No. 14(VIII)/2003 arising out of Sessions Case No. 62(8)/2005 by which the appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering Anima Pramanik aged about 30 years and her son Subhankar Pramanik @ Kebal, aged about 12 years; under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to murder Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty, aged about 60 years and under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the said Jeevan Krishna Chakraborty with a dao on his left wrist causing fracture and dismemberment of his right index finger. By the order dated 17th May 2006 the convict was sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code subject to confirmation by this Court in terms of Section 366 of the Cr.PC. The convict was also sentenced to su...

Smt. Nanu Sabar Vs. Chhutu Mahato and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1997 (Trial No. 24 of 1997) acquitted ten accused persons upon trial of the charges under Section 148, 341/149, 304(Part-I)/149 of the IPC by his judgment and order dated 20-122001 and the present revisional application has been filed by the wife of the deceased Smt. Nanu Sabar of village Boro under P.S. Boro of the district of Purulia on the grounds that there was misappreciation of evidence of the witnesses and in spite of P.W. 1 being eye-witness to the incident her evidence was not believed without any reason and that observation of the learned Judge that as the incident took place amidst darkness the assailants could not be identified was unjustified because the point was not raised by either of the parties in cross-examination of any of the witnesses.2. One Satyakinkar Mahato of village Boro lodged an FIR with the O.C. of Boro P.S. at 22.25 hours on 05-09-1993 alleging that a meeting in...

Krishna Kumar Bangur Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT190(HC)

Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This application under section has been filed by the accused/petitioner herein praying for quashing of the proceedings in case No. C/10558/04 pending in the Court of learned 11th Metrapolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 420 IPC.2. The petition of complaint was filed by M/s. Manor Travels Private Ltd. being the complainant/O.P. herein against Shri K.K. Bangur of M/s. Graphite India Ltd. i.e. the accused/petitioner herein alleging that the complainant company is a reputed travel company engaged in the business of providing and/or arranging air tickets both in domestic and international to its reputed customers who are mostly the leading companies of the country and high dignitaries like Director and Executives of reputed companies. The company purchase tickets from the different Airlines as per requests of its customers either verbally or in writing and the collection of the price of the said air tickets are made on presentation of bills to the customers at...

Damodar Valley Corporation Vs. Goutam Sinha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Tapen Sen, J.1. This Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.2003 passed in W.P. 6063 (W) of 2002 Goutam Sinha and Ors. v. D.V.C. and Ors. whereby and whereunder a learned Single Judge of this Court directed that the Writ Petitioners/workmen/Private Respondents (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Private Respondents) be included in the panel in terms of Annexures- P14 and P15 (brought on record by the Appellants through their supplementary Paper book) for purposes of absorption in accordance with the prevalent Schemes by treating as if their names had appeared in the panel right from the very beginning.2. The facts of this case, as gathered from the Paper Book, are that the Private Respondents filed the Writ Petition which was registered as W.P. No. 6063 (W) of 2002 wherein, while referring to the Office Circular dated 15.9.1977 and 25.5.1996 as well as other Circulars, they inter alia prayed for the issuance of a Writ of or in the nature ...

Sri Tapan Prakash Bose Vs. Sri Arun Kumar Bose and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT422(HC)

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The propriety of the order being No. 45 dated 14th November, 2006 passed by the Learned Small Causes Judge at Sealdah in T.S. No. 22 of 2006, is under challenge in this Revisional Application at the instance of the defendant/petitioner.2. Let me now consider as to how far the learned trial Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner's objection regarding misjoinder of causes of action in the suit, in the facts of the instant case.3. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit against the defendant/petitioner amongst others who are opposite parties No. 3 to 5 herein inter alia praying for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs' absolute right, title and interest in respect of 'A' schedule property with a further declaration that the defendant/petitioner is a bare licensee in 'A' schedule property and for recovery of possession of the 'A' schedule property from the defendant/petitioner on revocation of licence.4. In the said suit the plaintiffs have ...

Garh-moyna Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of We ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2008Cal275

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The two petitioners in this writ petition dated February 14th, 2008 taken out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are seeking a writ of certiorari quashing (a) the Consumer Case No. 23 of 2006 that was allowed on contest by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Abasbari, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur by its final order dated March 28th, 2007, and (b) the Execution Case No. 14 of 2007 initiated before the forum for execution of its order dated March 28th, 2007.2. The consumer case was registered on the basis of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lodged by the sixth respondent, Sri Nakul Chandra Sahu, with the forum in 2006. The first and second among the five opposite parties in the complaint were Sri Bishnupada Barman and Sri Bhakti Binod Samanta, the Chairman and the Secretary respectively of one Garh-Moyna Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., a co-operative society registered within the meaning of the provisions of the We...

In Re: Subhasree Datta and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT43(HC),2008(2)CHN303,II(2008)DMC582

Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the joint petitioners.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order, being Order No. 3 dated 7th January, 2008 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Matrimonial Suit No. 1969 of 2007.3. By the order impugned, the learned court below dismissed an interlocutory application filed by the joint petitioners herein for preponing the date of hearing of the mutual consent divorce petition, filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, primarily on two grounds, namely:(a) At the time of hearing of the interlocutory application, the petitioners had not filed even a scrap of paper in order to support their contention of foreign assignment, and(b) Mutual consent petition for divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 could not be preponed, since statutory waiting period of six months had not yet elapsed.4. ...

Md. AshiruddIn and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT226(HC)

Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 300 Cr.PC praying for quashing of Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 281 dated 06.12.2005 under Section 498A/34 IPC pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat, District - Nadia.2. The petitioner No. 1 is a retired Sub-Inspector of Police and the petitioner No. 2 is a Constable. The first wife of petitioner No. 1 died and thereafter he again married O.P. No. 2 Rojina Bibi on 25.06.2004 according to Muslim Shariat Laws and both of them were leading conjugal life in village Murcha, P.S. Khargram, District-Murshidabad. O.P. No. 2 was a widow at the time of her marriage with petitioner No. 1 and had a son and two daughters out of her previous marriage. The petitioner No. 1 used to reside in Krishnanagar where he was posted and the O.P. No. 2 was residing in village Morcha. There was difference of opinion between the spouses. O.P. No. 2 filed a case against the petitioner No. 1 under S...

Sri Lal Mohan Mukherjee Vs. Md. Wasim and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)3CALLT145(HC)

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. An order of appointment of the handwriting expert for his opinion with regard to the genuinety of the purported signature of the petitioner appearing on the acknowledgement card, passed by the learned Trial Judge, is challenged by the plaintiff/petitioner in this revlsional application.2. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for partition. The plaintiff claims in his plaint that he could not exercise his right of pre-emption, as no notice was served upon him by his co-sharers, i.e., the opposite party Nos. 3 to 15 intimating him about their intention to sell their shares in the suit property in favour of Mr. Mukherjee's clients.3. Mr. Mukherjee's clients are contesting the said suit by filing written statement alleging therein that the notice was served upon the plaintiff/petitioner by their vendors intimating him about their intention to sell their shares in the suit property but since the petitioner did not respond to the said notice, the opposite partie...