Kolkata Court June 2008 Judgments

Sajjan Sharma Vs. Dindayal Sharma

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2008Cal224,2008(4)CHN550

ORDERBiswanath Somadder, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order dated 14th August, 2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th First (Fast) Track Court (Incharge), Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas, in Miscellaneous Case No. 121 of 2006, whereby an application Under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, was disposed of.2. The petitioner herein is the father of twin male children who are presently in the custody and home of their maternal grandparents at Ranchi.3. The instant application was filed before this Court on 11th September, 2007. Consequently, the petitioner took out an application, being C.A.N. No. 1005 of 2008, which was initially moved during the last puja vacation with A.S.T.A. No. 1300 of 2007. By an order dated 5th November, 2007, the learned vacation Judge inter alia appointed Miss. Sumita Shaw a learned Advocate of this Court as a Special Officer to accompany the petitioner to Ranchi i...

Rama Das and ors. Vs. Universal Fibre Glass Products and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009ACJ271

B. Bhattacharya and R.N. Banerjee, JJ.1. Instead of disposal of the application, we have heard out the appeal itself by treating it as on day's list as the appeal is otherwise ready.2. There is no dispute that predecessor-in-interest of the appellants died in accident involving a vehicle, which is covered by the insurance of respondent insurance company.3. There is also no dispute that the victim was an employee of United Bank of India and was aged 45 years at the time of death. His gross salary at that point of time was Rs. 8,418 a month and as such, by applying the multiplier of 15, the total amount of compensation will come to Rs. 10,10,160 + Rs. 9,500 = Rs. 10,19,660.4. The learned Tribunal below assessed the compensation amount to such a figure, but thereafter, was of the view that as the widow was getting family pension and the son of the victim was given appointment on compassionate grounds in the same bank, the amount should be assessed at Rs. 6,24,160.5. Being dissatisfied, th...

Sadhu Charan Goswami Vs. Gora Chand Bural and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN246

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and is directed against the judgement and decree dated March 30, 1998, passed by the learned Judge, Tenth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 2294 of 1984, thereby dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, being out of possession of the property in question, was not entitled to maintain a suit for declaration in the negative form and for permanent injunction without praying for recovery of possession.2. The case made out by the plaintiff was that one Shyma Sundari was a thika tenant in respect of the suit property under the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and that she created a Debattor estate by installation of two deities. According to the plaintiff, after the death of the said Shyma Sundari, the thika tenancy devolved upon the two shebaits of those deities appointed by Shyma Sundari viz. Madan Mohan and Bh...

Sri Sukumar Samanta and anr. Vs. Sri Sibdas Roy and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN704

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the defendants Nos. 3 and 4, the subsequent purchasers, in a suit for specific performance of contract and alternatively, for a decree for pre-emption and is directed against the judgement and decree dated August 26, 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court, Howrah, in Title Suit No. 173 of 1992, thereby passing not only a decree for specific performance of contract but also a decree for preemption by exercising power under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed the abovementioned suit being Title Suit No. 173 of 1992 against their adjoining neighbours, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement of sale of the suit property, which is a part of a house as described in the schedule of the plaint, on the allegation that the defendant No. 2, on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother, the defendant No. 1, oral...

W.H. Targett (India) Limited Vs. Mr. S. Ashraf and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)3CALLT362(HC)

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. An application for contempt and an application for review are considered analogously by consent of the parties.2. The application for contempt is filed, inter alia, alleging willful and deliberate violation and disobedience of the order dated December 3, 1998 passed by Satya Brata Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Matter No. 4241 of 1991. The said application for contempt was filed on or about December 2, 1999.3. An application seeking review and re-calling of the said order dated December 3, 1998, inter alia, directing mutation of the name of the writ petitioner in relation to the premises No. 145 Sundernagar, New Delhi, is filed by the respondents in the writ petition on or about July 5, 2000.4. The relevant facts leading to filing of the said applications are summarised as under:Under the instructions of the Government of India, relating to the disposal of building sites in the New Capital of Delhi, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi granted a perpetu...

Monojit Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN86

Soumitra Pal, J.1. In the writ application, the petitioner, who had passed MBBS Examination and had served as a Medical Officer with the Indian Air Force for Armed Forces Medical Corps and had completed active five years Short Service Commission Service, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents particularly, upon the refepondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to admit him in one of the seats available in the Post-Graduate Courses for May, 2008 Session as a Priority-IV candidate. Submission has been made that since there are eight seats open for admission in the Command Hospital, Kolkata, the petitioner who has been placed 4th in the Priority IV category is entitled to be appointed since there are either lesser number of students or no students in Priority-I, Priority-II and Priority-III categories. Submission is the answering respondents cannot curtail the seats as has been sought to be done in violation of the provisions contained in Section 10(a) of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and as the w...

Susana Dasgupta and anr. Vs. Paul Sarai and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009ACJ366

B. Bhattacharya and R.N. Banerjee, JJ.1. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 27.7.1998, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sixth Court of learned Additional District Judge), Alipore, 24-Parganas in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 10 of 1996 thereby disposing of the said proceeding by directing the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 4,40,000 to the applicants as compensation out of which Rs. 50,000 had already been paid in a proceeding under Section 140 of the said Act.2. Being dissatisfied, the applicants have come up with the present appeal.3. There is no dispute that predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, the victim, was a typist employed in the Reserve Bank of India and he died in an accident wherein the offending vehicle was covered by the insurance of the respondent No. 1. There is also no dispute that at the time of death, the victim was aged between 40 an...

Anup Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Dipankar Datta, J.1. The petitioner has alleged that the contemnors/opposite parties have committed contempt by deliberately and wilfully violating the order of this Court dated 15.10.07 on W.P. No. 19280 (W) of 2007 being a writ petition filed by him. By the said order dated 15.10.07, the interim order passed on the petition on 19.9.07 was extended till 31.1.08 or until further orders, whichever was earlier. The Court's order dated 19.9.07 had restrained the respondents from interfering with or disturbing the ferry service of the petitioner at Garaimari Ferry Ghat till 16.10.07 or until further orders, whichever was earlier.2. Pleading of the petitioners alleging contempt would be found in paragraph 14 of the contempt petition which is set out below:The petitioner states that all on a sudden inspite of due communication on 28-01-2008 the opposite parties/contemnors No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 working in collusion with Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer and Block Land and Land Refor...

Biren Singh Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)3CALLT294(HC)

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 30th July, 2001 passed by the learned additional sessions Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur in sessions Trial No. 9/2000 arising out of sessions Case No. 59/2000 by which the appellant Biren Singh was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 31st July, 2001 the convict was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2. Mr. Dutta, the learned Advocate, appearing in support of the appeal, submitted that there is no evidence on the basis of which the appellant could have been convicted. According to him, the learned Trial Judge grossly erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of an extra judicial confession. An extra judicial confession according to him is by itself a weak piece of evidence and cannot be relied upon without an assurance that...