Kolkata Court March 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.
Rakesh Thakur Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-25-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal187,2008(2)CHN930
ORDERSoumitra Pal, J.1. In the writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the Controller of Examinations, University of Kalyani to allow him to fill up the form by depositing late fees for appearing in B. A. Part-II Examination of Honours in English, 2008 through Kanchrapara College. Declaration has also been sought for declaring the Regulation of Kalyani University allowing a candidate on completion of regular course of study to appear a maximum of three Year Part II Examinations within three years of qualifying Part I Examination as ultra vires the provision of the Constitution of India.2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was placed in the first division in both Madhyamik and Higher Secondary Examinations. Thereafter, in 2002 he got admitted in Kanchrapara College for pursuing 3 years B.A. (Honours) course in English. The duration of Part-I is two years and that of Part-II is of one year. After pursuing the course, the petitioner appeared in Part-I Examina...
S.K. Devanath @ Sampangi and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN474,2008CriLJ2831
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In the instant criminal revisional application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners sought for quashing of the Siliguri Police Station FIR No. 279/2007 relating to the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(i)(ii) and (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the following grounds.(a) The order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the Learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pursuant to which the impugned FIR was registered, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.(b) On the face of the allegations contained in the impugned FIR no offence has been made out.2. Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned advocate appearing in support of this application firstly contended that the Special Court constituted under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, being a Sessions Court and not an...
Saroj Kumar Paul Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN257
1. The appellant is an Execution Clerk to the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Jhargram, District Midnapore (West). A criminal case under Section 498A/320/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the elder brother of the appellant. Allegations are also made against the appellant. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, appellant was arrested when he was returning home after office on 2nd January, 2007. He remained in custody till he was released on bail by order dated 29th January, 2007. On February 2, 2007 when the petitioner reported for duty a show-cause notice was served upon him asking him to show-cause as to why appropriate steps shall not be taken against him for unauthorized absence from duty since January 3, 2007. The petitioner submitted, the reply to the show-cause notice and stated that he did not attend the duty as he was in custody. Since his absence from duty was unintentional and due to unavoidable circumstances, he prayed for grant...
K. Jayraj Vs. Moses Pandian
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)CHN106
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the plaintiff assailing the judgement and order dated 9th March, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2004 (Moses Pandian v. K. Jayaraj) allowing the appeal filed by the defendant/tenant against the order dated 30th July, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair in Other Suit No. 48 of 1997. The plaintiff herein filed the suit before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Port Blair for eviction of the defendant/tenant under Regulation 13 of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Rent Control Regulations, 1964. In connection with the said suit an application under Regulations 14(1) and (2) of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Rent Control Regulations, 1964 was filed by the plaintiff. The said petition was allowed by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division at Port Blair by order dated 17th February, 199...
RabIn Paul and Unique Engineering Works and anr. Vs. Prasanta Kumar Du ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC150,(2008)2CALLT51(HC),2008(3)CHN811
Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. C.R.R. 299 of 2007 and C.R.R. 300 of 2007 are being disposed of by this common judgment and order because of the facts that the parties are the same, the facts exactly identical and the questions of law as have been urged in the two revisional applications are also common.2. The petitioner who was known to the opposite party herein since long before the transaction allegedly obtained loan of Rs. 5 lacs from the opposite party and towards repayment of the loan he issued a cheque being No. 561248 dated 20th August, 1997 for Rs. 1,50,000/- (one lac fifty thousand) drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Branch which was deposited with the bank but was dishonoured on the ground that account was closed by the petitioner as far back as 21st July, 1995. Then followed statutory notice under Section 138(B) of N.I. Act, on 22nd August, 1997 but it was returned back with the postman's remark 'left the address'. Then the case was instituted and trial followed. L...
National Film Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shantilal Bakliwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal157,2008(4)CHN162
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a tenant-defendant in a suit for eviction decreed only on the ground of reasonable requirement, and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 1999, in Ejectment Suit No. 139 of 1986.2. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present first appeal.3. The case made out by the plaintiff/respondent in the plaint may be summed up thus:(a) The plaintiff was the owner of the flat No. 11 on the third floor of the building known as 'Shantiniketan' at 8, Camac Street, Calcutta by purchase from M/s. Shantiniketan Estates Private Limited.(b) The defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the said flat. Subsequent to the creation of the tenancy, the defendant agreed in writing to deliver vacant possession to the landlord on the expiry of 3rd April, 1984 but in spite of such undertaking, the possession was not handed over to the landlord.(c) The defendant was a defaulter in payment of ...
Tarun Kumar Khemka Vs. Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN688
Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. The only point involved in the appeal is whether statutory notice under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be said to have been served upon the respondent-accused.2. As per the petition of complaint (Complaint Case No. 52 of 2005) the respondent obtained a personal loan of Rs. 7 lac from the appellant and towards discharge of the legal debt the respondent made over a cheque for Rs. 7 lac on 05.01.2005 drawn on Bank of Baroda, U.C. Road Branch, Kolkata which was dishonoured and consequently returned to the appellant on 26.04.2005 on account of insufficient fund. Appellant served a notice by a Lawyer's letter dated 06.05.2005 which was allegedly received by the respondent and the acknowledgement card (Exbt.4) was returned back on 09.05.2005. Brother of the respondent, one Punit Kumar Jhunjhunwala despatched a letter to the appellant acknowledging acceptance of the notice but requested to supply the details of the cheque. In spite of service of notice p...
Shri Krishna Khaitan and ors. Vs. Additional Registrar of Companies
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN135
Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. By this application dated 20th December, 2005 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made for quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. C-1143 of 1998 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta under Section 628 of the Companies Act. Also is challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 26.07.2005 in connection with the proceeding.2. The Additional Registrar of Companies lodged petition of complaint against ten persons who are the petitioners herein alleging that the petitioners who are the Directors/officers of M/s. Khaitan Electricals Limited deliberately gave wrong statement in the balance sheet as at 31st March, 1995 in violation of the provision of Section 628 of the Companies Act. During inspection of books of accounts and other records of the company carried out by an officer authorised by the Central Government under Section 209A of the Companies Act, 1956, it was observed tha...
Dilip Kumar Panda Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN305
Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Judge, Special Court (EC Act), Tamluk on 22.12.1987 under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act and Section 9(ii) of that Act for contravention of the provision of para 5(2) of West Bengal Licensing of Dealer of Cement and Distribution of Levy Cement Order, 1982 (for short the Order).2. Para 5(2) of the Order reads as follows:Every licensee shall maintain separately for each place of business, a register containing correct and true accounts of purchase, sale and storage of cement at premises or places, to be written up at the end of each day. The register shall show-(a) the opening stock of the day,(b) the quantity received during the day,(c) the quantity delivered or otherwise disposed of during the day,(d) the closing stock of the day, and(e) such other particulars as the licensing authority may, by order in writing, specify.3. Amalendu Maiti, Sub-Inspector of Food and Supplies, Mahisadal Block-1, upon receipt of an info...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Biswanath Agarwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN401
Bhaskar Bhattacharya , J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the Eastern Railway and is directed against the award dated 22nd November, 2000 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Calcutta, in Railway Claim Application No. 979 of 1999 by which the Tribunal passed an award for refund of Rs. 24,473/-.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the present appeal may be summed up thus:One consignment dated 29th October, 1998 was booked from Chirai to Malda Town Station and the consignment was loaded in five wagons. As the loading was not supervised by the Railway staff, in the receipt, such fact was specifically mentioned. According to the Railway, while the consignment loaded on wagon was on its was to the destination station, a vigilance team of the Eastern Railway intercepted the train concerned and conducted reweighment of those wagons at the Pakur Railway weighbridge and found that there was overloading; as a result, the Railway authority demanded the excess charge for 34 quintals amounti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »