Kolkata Court August 2008 Judgments

Ancharul Haque (Mia) Vs. State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009(1)CHN172

Kishore Kumar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 7th September, 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 8(2)/05 arising out of Sessions Case No. 67/04 by which the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/498A of IPC. By an order dated 8th September, 2006, the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. No separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC was awarded by the learned Lower Court.2. The parents of the appellant namely Tachiruddin Mia @ Tozir Mia and Jamila Bibi were also tried in this case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC but the Trial Court finding no tangible evidence against them to his satisfaction had however, acquitted them of the off...

Gopinath Mukherjee Vs. Uttam Bharati

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal58

ORDERJyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner herein by service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon the defendant.2. In such a suit, the defendant/petitioner filed an application, inter alia, praying for permission from the Court for deposit of the entire arrear rent in Court in order to avail of the reliefs under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The said application of the defendant/petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by Order No. 6 dated 23-5-2007.3. The defendant also filed another application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission from the Court for fixing two additional collapsible gates and two shutter gates in the shop room. Such prayer of the petitioner was also refused by the learned trial Judge vide Order No. 7 dated 23rd May. 2007.4. The propriety of both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this revisional ap...

Rasaball Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008ACJ202

B. Bhattacharya and R.N. Banerjee, JJ.1. Instead of disposal of the application, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating it as on day's list.2. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 14.7.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uttar Dinajpur in M.A.C. Case No. 100 of 2004 thereby disposing of the same by awarding a sum of Rs. 60,000 in favour of the claimants.3. Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.4. There is no dispute about the involvement of the offending vehicle or the fact that such vehicle was insured by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. According to the claimants, the victim had a business of selling seeds in different markets and had income of Rs. 3,000 a month. Claimants alleged that the victim was aged 44 years at the time of his death.5. The learned Tribunal below was of the view that in the fact of the present c...

Gouri Sirkar and anr. Vs. Moni Bhusan Sirkar

Court: Kolkata

Indira Banerjee, J.1. In this application the Deity Iswar Sri Sri Raj Rajeswar Jew Trust Estate, represented by its Secretary has sought the following reliefs:a) Joint Receivers, namely, Mr. Ananda Prasad Ghosh and Mr. Prasanta Naskar be discharged.b) Joint Receivers be directed to hand-over all assets, properties, of every description, whatever belonging to the said Deity to its Shebait the said Radhanath Sirkar including all monies and all movable properties in the form of money or otherwise kept in bank accounts since operated by Joint Commissioner of Partition/Receiver/Special Referee.c) To pass such further or other order or orders as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper.2. On or about 8th September, 1955, the plaintiffs instituted the above suit for partition of the properties of Late Manmatha Bhusan Sirkar and other reliefs.3. On or about 1st August, 1956, after the suit was filed Krishna Gopal Sirkar, since deceased, purchased the building and premises No. 60 & 160/1 B.B. ...

Kishwar Jahan and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN857

Dipankar Datta, J.1. Rizwanur Rahman (hereafter Riz), since deceased, son and brother of the petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, was laid to rest in September last. The suspicious circumstances in which he died, the role of the State Police agencies in investigating the cause of his death, the conduct of certain police officers of Kolkata Police both before and after his death, alleged involvement of his father-in-law Ashok Todi (respondent No. 12) and his uncles-in-iaw Anil Saraogi (respondent No. 13) and Pradeep Todi (not a party to the petition) in connection with his unnatural death, investigation conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereafter the CBI) being directed by this Court - all these and much more, have exercised thoughtful consideration of this Court on the face of eloquent arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the State, the accused police officers and the respondent No. 12 and learned Counsel for the CBI and the respondent No. 13, b...

Secretary, Managing Committee, Madhu T.E. High School Vs. Ashis Bhatta ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)3CALLT523(HC),2008(4)CHN464

Partha Sakha Datta, JJ.1. The respondent No. 1 In this appeal had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No. 13947(W)/07 against the State of West Bengal, Director of School Education, Regional School Service Commission and the present appellant le. the Secretary of the Managing Committee of Madhu T.E. High School alleging inaction on the part of the respondents therein in the matter of according necessary approval to the appointment of the said respondent No. 1/writ petitioner as Headmaster of the said school. While serving as an Assistant Teacher of Purba Dhantala Junior High School in the district of Jalpaiguri he responded to an advertisement for the post of Headmaster in Junior High School and the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission (Northern Region) (for short the Commission) upon selection recommended his candidature to the post of Headmaster of Madhu T.E. Junior High School by a Memo dated 16th May, 2007. Meanwhile, by a commu...

Sri Subrata Kumar Mishra and anr. Vs. Sundaram Finance Limited and anr ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT92(HC)

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In this criminal revisional application invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenged the order dated January 17, 2008 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur, in connection with M.P. Case No. 157 of 2008 whereby the learned Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed the complaint made to the Court by the opposite party No. 1 against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, be forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Durgapur Police Station with a further direction that same be treated as a First Information Report and to cause investigation.2. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, the learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in support of his prayer for quashing urged as follows;(a) The allegations contained in the complaint has not disclosed any offence and the Learn...

Citicorp Finance (India) Limited Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT271(HC)

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Joy Sengupta, the learned advocate appearing with Mr. Imran Siddique for the petitioner, Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh for the State and Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Ray, the learned advocate, appearing with Mr. Partha Chakraborty on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. Perused the impugned complaint as well as the other materials on record.2. This is a case where the petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court sought for quashing of the FIR relating to Burdwan Police Station Case No. 230/2008 under Sections 341/323/379/411 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. Case No. 583/2008 now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan.3. The allegations contained in the impugned FIR are as follows:A Tata Truck Registration No. WB-15A/4478 of which the petitioner is the registered owner while was proceeding from Burdwan to Kolkata on May 5, 2008 near Saktigar Bridge at around 6.30 a.m., in the morning, a group of 5/6 persons intercepted the tru...

Ramprahalad Mishra and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT214(HC),2008(4)CHN921

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In the instant criminal revisional application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner challenged an order of framing charge under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the Sessions Case No. 5/08 now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Asansol.2. By the aforesaid order the charge under Sections 306/498A of the Indian Penal Code was framed as against the husband of the victim girl viz. Amal Mishra and the present petitioners, who are happened to be the relations of her husband. The petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law, the petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law and the rests three petitioners are the brother-in-law of the victim girl.3.It is pertinent to note that the husband Amal Mishra has not joined in the instant criminal revisional application as a petitioner with his other relations.4. It is a settled legal position since an order of framing charge affects perso...

Mr. Ravindra Kumar and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)IVCALLT311(HC),2009CriLJ130

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Since a common question of law involved in both the criminal revisions viz. C.R.R. No. 1147 of 2008 and C.R.R. No. 1148 of 2008, both the matters are taken together for hearing.2. Heard Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner with Mr. Koushik Chatterjee. Mr. Jayanta Nath Saha, learned advocate appearing with Mr. K.P. Tewari on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in both the matters and Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned advocate, appearing for the State in C.R.R. No. 1147 of 2008 and Mr. Swapan Kumar Mullick, the learned advocate for the State appearing in C.R.R. No. 1148 of 2008. Perused the impugned order as well as the other materials on record and the case laws relied upon by the parties.3. The subject matter of challenge in both the aforesaid criminal revisions is an order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in connection with a proceeding relating to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable ...