Kolkata Court November 2009 Judgments

Sudarshan Nandi and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta in Sessions Trial No. 1(3) of 2005 arising out of Sessions Case No. 92 of 2004 sentencing thereby the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 373 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code with the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.2. A complaint was lodged by S.I. Debol Kumar Das suo motu wherein it has been alleged that after receiving information the complainant along with lady constable Usha Pradhan and lady Home Guard Kajal Ghosh rescued two minor girls and arrested two accused pe...

Sri Jagannath Dhali and ors. Vs. Sri Ram Chandra Mandal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2010Cal32

Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.2. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 22nd June, 2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ist Fast Track Court, Hooghly, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 105 of 2003, dismissing the said Miscellaneous Appeal.3. The petitioners in the instant application were the appellants and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 herein, being the respondents in the said appeal; the rest being proforma respondents/opposite parties.4. By the order impugned, the learned court below while dismissing the Miscellaneous Appeal, observed inter alia, that transfer of an immovable property takes effect from the date of registration and not from the date of its execution and therefore it did not find anything illegal in the pre-emptors seeking preemption in respect of transfer of the plot-in-question, being plot No. 172, by six separate deeds executed o...

Ashutosh Chakraborty and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Dipankar Datta, J.1. The two petitioners herein are sons of late B.P. Chakraborty. They have been carrying on business from a static unit (tea stall) installed on the platform of Andul Railway Station. In this petition, they have complained of arbitrary enhancement of license fees by the respondents 3 and 5.2. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate representing the said respondents raised a preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, though the petitioners have described themselves as proprietors of the proprietorship firm 'M/s. B.P. Chakraborty & Sons', in reality they are partners and carrying on business in partnership. The dispute in respect of enhancement of licence fees arises from a contract between the parties and unless the firm of which the petitioners are partners is registered in terms of provisions contained in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereafter the Act), a writ petition being a proceeding in a Court of law would be...

Naba Kumar Katari Vs. Kalyani Katari

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, A.C.J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th October, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Arambagh, District-Hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No. 72 of 2005, thereby dismissing the proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights.2. Being dissatisfied, the husband has come up with the present appeal.3. There is no dispute that the parties were married on 5th July, 1987 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and in the said wedlock, two children were born. The husband, at present, is employed in Border Security Force and is posted at Amritsar in the State of Punjab.4. After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife in the joint family of the husband, but in view of disputes between the wife and her in-laws, in absence of the husband, the wife left the said joint family of her husband and went back to her f...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sinjini Gupta and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, A.C.J.1. These three appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act along with a cross-objection filed by the respondent in the third one mentioned above were heard analogously as those arose out of proceedings for compensation for the deaths of three different victims who died of the same accident. In the first two matters the daughter of the two victims filed the application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for the death of her parents while in the third matter, the parents and the son of one Manoj Kr. Jash, the victim, who was also a co-passenger of the selfsame vehicle filed the application for compensation.2. Those proceedings gave rise to three different Motor Accident claim Cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and three different awards were passed separately on the basis of different sets of evidence adduced by the parties.3. We, therefore, propose to deal with these appeals separately one after the other.F.M.A.T. 1162 o...

Jiban Kumar Ghosh and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The appellants claimed to be the owners of different contagious plots at Mouza - Manikdihi under Police Station Kaliganj in the District of Nadia. In 1960, the Land Acquisition Collector requisitioned the said land for the ultimate purpose of acquisition under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 for the purpose of construction of raising and straightening Jagat Khali Food Protection Embankment. After the appropriate order of requisition it was the obligation of the State to take appropriate steps for ultimate acquisition of the property by initiating an acquisition proceeding issuing notice under Section 4(1a) of the said Act of 1948. The legislature subsequently enacted a law namely the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1994 giving its effect on and from March 31, 1994 by which Section 3 of the said Act of 1948 was omitted. The life of the said Act of 1948 was however, limited till March 31, 1997 by subsequent amend...

Debal Kumar Bakshi Vs. Sm. Bithi Bakshi @ Bhattacharya

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, A.C.J.1. This appeal is at the instance of a husband in a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fifth Court, Alipore, Dist.-South 24-Parganas, in Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 1996, thereby dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove cruelty and desertion alleged in the petition for divorce.2. Being dissatisfied, the husband has come up with the present appeal.3. The appellant filed in the Court of the District Judge a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 226 of 1996 against the respondent for divorce, which was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Fifth Court, Alipore, and was renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 1996.4. The case made out by the appellant may be summed up thus:(a) The husband is a B.Sc., B.A., Calcutta University and B.E.E. of Jadavpur University and was employed in the El...

Pratima Paul and ors. Vs. Rupa Paul and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, A.C.J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the substituted plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against a judgment and decree dated 14th September, 2001, passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 936 of 1987, thereby dismissing the said suit.2. Being dissatisfied, the substituted plaintiffs have come up with the present first appeal.3. The original plaintiff, the second son of the original defendant, filed in the City Civil Court at Calcutta a suit being Title Suit No. 936 of 1987 thereby praying for the following relief:a) Decree for declaration that the Decree dated 17.3.87 passed by Learned Judge, Second Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Suit No. 2757/86 is void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff;b) Decree for declaration that the Plaintiff has right, title interest in the suit property by the law of inheritance as son/heir of his deceased father;c) Decre...

Munmun Ghosh Vs. Tarun Kumar Malik

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, A.C.J.1. This appeal is at the instance of an applicant under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and is directed against a judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fourth Court, Burdwan, in Matrimonial Suit No. 2 of 2008 thereby dismissing the suit on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the ingredients of Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act for getting a decree for declaration of nullity of the marriage between the parties.2. Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present first appeal.3. The appellant before us filed in the Court of District Judge, Burdwan, on 10th October, 2004 a suit, being Matrimonial Suit No. 220 of 2004, under Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act for annulment of the marriage dated 19th August, 2004 held in accordance with the Special Marriage Act on the ground that the marriage between the parties was never consummated due to wilful refusal on the part of the resp...

Prime Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2010Cal40

ORDERSanjib Banerjee, J.1. The reliefs claimed in the suit have been reproduced at paragraph 37 of the petition:(a) The letter notice dated March 24, 2009 being Annexure 'I' hereof be adjudged null and void and be delivered up and cancelled;(b) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from acting contrary to or in any manner inconsistent with terms of the agreement between the parties as recorded in paragraph 16 above and from effecting recoveries in a manner contrary thereto;(c) Alternatively decree for determination of the amounts due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent and a decree be made for such sum as may be found upon enquiry, in favour of the respondent;(d) Receiver;(e) Injunction;(f) Attachment;(g) Costs;(h) Such further and/or other relief or reliefs.2. By a letter dated February 28, 2009 the defendant bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The bank put...