Kolkata Court April 2008 Judgments

Dipak Kumar Singh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN943

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The applicant before us having lost in eviction suit (Ejectment Suit No. 369 of 2004) before the learned 6th Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore had preferred appeal before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal) challenging the said decree of dismissal. The learned Tribunal by brief judgement and order dated 12th March, 2007 rejected such challenge. The applicant before us has impugned both the judgement and order. The applicant filed the suit for eviction against the respondent on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, building and re-building. At the time of hearing of the suit before the learned Civil Judge the ground for reasonable requirement was not pressed. The other grounds were examined by the learned Civil Judge and found the plaintiff viz. the applicant had failed to prove the case of default and also building and re-building.2. Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Advoc...

Subal Duley Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN268

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgement dated 21st February, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No. 1/November/2002 arising out of Sessions Case No. 16(9) of 2001 convicting the appellant-Subal Duley, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and an order dated 22nd February, 2005 by which the convict was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are that about eight years prior to the date of the incident the deceased Sibnath had developed an illicit relationship with Chhabirani, wife of the accused Kinkar. She at that point of time was a mother of two children. The deceased was at that point of time a student reading in school. Chhabirani and Sibnath had eloped togeth...

Saraju Bala Roy and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN995

Dipankar Datta, J.1. A mother has come up before this Court complaining of police inaction in respect of alleged torture inflicted on her and her husband by her eldest son (respondent No. 4) and her daughter-in-law (respondent No. 5).2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had approached the Executive Magistrate with a petition under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, giving rise to M.P. Case No. 2 of 2007 and that the Magistrate by an order dated 5.12.07 had directed the respondents 4 and 5 herein to execute a bond of Rs. 5,000/- each with two sureties of equal amount for maintaining good behaviour for one year from the date of execution of such bond and the Inspector-in-Charge, Lake Town Police Station was directed to ensure that the life and property of the petitioner and her family members are not violated in any manner by the opposite parties therein, and that such order of the Executive Magistrate has been stayed in Criminal Revisional Application No. 249 of 2007 ...

Subhamoy Singha Roy Vs. Jadavpur University and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT468(HC),2008(3)CHN507

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Passion and prejudice are two charlatans that lie in stealthy wait to waylay any quasi-judicial adjudication, however noble the purpose of the exercise. To the two original limbs of natural justice of audi alteram partem (nobody shall be condemned unheard) and nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa (nobody shall be judge of his own cause), has been added a third: the duty to assign reasons. A quasi-judicial order is founded on reason, not instinct. An order made on impression is erroneous in form and substance.2. The petitioner in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a decision made on the recommendation of an enquiry commission set up by the University to look into the charges of alleged malpractice involving two theses submitted for PhD degrees under the faculty of science of the University. The full report has been disclosed in the University's affidavit. The one-man enquiry commission has begun the report by rec...

Sri Sudarshanmoy Ghosh and ors. Vs. South Bengal State Transport Corpo ...

Court: Kolkata

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. This writ application has been filed by 60 writ petitioners jointly, who are retired employees of South Bengal State Transport Corporation being a Corporation created under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 by the State of West Bengal retaining its full control over the management, function and finance. Out of the said 60 writ petitioners, 36 writ petitioners retired before 1st April, 1997 and the rest after 1st April, 1997. The writ petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:a) Rule NISI upon the Respondents calling upon them to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not issue directing them to forbear from giving effect to and/or continuing to give effect to and/or giving further effect to and/or withdraw and/or cancel and/or rescind the impugned decision, if any, taken or followed for not paying pension to the petitioners and/or the persons who retired from service of the Respondent Corporation and are entitled to pension under the sai...

Swapan Roy Vs. Maya Roy (Kar) and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN707

Arunabha Basu, J.1. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Barrackpore in connection with Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2004 affirming the order dated 19.2.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Barrackpore in connection with No. M Case No. 90 of 2003.2. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is married to one Smt. Tapati Roy and the said marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 10th May, 1978. Out of said marriage, one son was born in the year 1979 and one daughter was born in the year 1984. The said marriage is still subsisting, opposite party No. 1 is legally married wife of one Badal Kar @ Paritosh Kar which is revealed from the voter list of Noapara Assembly Constituency. The said opposite party introduced herself as l...

P.C. Chandra Jewellery Apex (Pvt.) Limited Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN405

Arunabha Basu, J.1. The revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 10.4.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah in connection with Complaint Case No. C-148 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below postponed the issuance of process and directed Officer-in-Charge of Entally Police Station to investigate in terms of provision under Sub-section (1) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The main contention of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate while passing the aforesaid order only took into consideration the subsequent amendment which came into force with effect from 23rd June, 2006 without considering the entire scope of Section 202 in its proper perspective.3. Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows:202. Postponement of issue of process.-(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is autho...

Ratan Sen and ors. Vs. Kanailal Sinha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the added defendants in a suit for eviction decreed on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 1996 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 894 of 1983.2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit against one Kshitish Chandra Sen Majumder on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting by describing him as the sole tenant.3. In the said suit, the appellants before us filed application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and they were added as defendants on their allegation that they were sub-tenants with the consent of the previous owner of the property in writing. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs- respondents were subsequent purchasers.4. The suit was not contested by the heirs of the original defendants. However, the added defendants, the a...

Sri Jamini Das and anr. Vs. Sri Hirendra Kumar Sukla and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of contract and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7th February, 1995 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Tenth Court, Alipore, District - 24-Parganas (South), in Title Suit No. 73 of 1989 by which the said Court dismissed the said suit.2. The case made out by the appellants may be summed up thus:(a) One Gopendra Prasad Sukul, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 was the absolute owner of Premises No. 25, Panditia Terrace, Calcutta-700 029 who entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff No. 1 for sale of the ground floor self-contained flat measuring 1,800 sq. ft. at the price of Rs. 70,000/- after taking an advance of Rs. 10,000/-.(b) The said Gopendra Prasad Sukul died on 14th October, 1984 leaving him the defendant No. 5 and one Surendra Sukul, his two sons, as his sole heirs and legal representatives. T...

The Secretary, Ram Nagar Layek Para Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samiti Limi ...

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two mandamus-appeals were taken up together as a common order passed by the learned Single Judge, disposing of two writ-applications, has been challenged by preferring these two mandamus-appeals.2. Initially, M.A.T. No. 1678 of 2004 was filed by the appellant by impleading both the writ-petitioners as respondents along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. A Division Bench of this Court condoned such delay. Subsequently, objections having been raised by the respondents/writ-petitioners as regards the maintainability of one appeal against a common order disposing of two writ-applications, the other appeal being M.A.T. No. 2057 of 2007 was filed along with an application for condonation of delay.3. After taking into consideration the fact that M.A.T. No. 1678 of 2004 had already been filed by making both the writ-petitioners as parties, we have decided to condone the delay in filing the latter one as by filing the said appeal,...