Kolkata Court December 2009 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.
Appollo Gleaneagles Hospitals Limited Vs. Somnath Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-2009
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. These two appeals were heard by us on the above mentioned dates. Since both these appeals arise out of the same order, both are disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. BACK DROP:2.1 Premises No. 59, Canal Circular Road, Kolkata was owned by one Narayan Chandra Dutta during his life time. After his demise his heirs sold and conveyed the said premises to Smt. Tilak Sundari Debi and Sidhubhusan Mukherjee vide conveyance dated April 6, 1949. The said premises was a vacant land. After purchase Tilak Sundari Debi and Sidhubhusan Mukherjee applied for a redemption certificate which was issued by the then Collector of District 24-Parganas on June 15, 1953. Tilak Sundari Debi subsequently came to learn that M/s Hindustan Housing and Development Trust Limited (hereinafter referred to as Hindustan) attempted to mutate the said land in their favour on the strength of a deed of conveyance dated June 15, 1957 executed by M/s Guin Brothers claiming to be the succes...
Shew Kumar Shaw Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-2009
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1 .This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.04.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 9th Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 8(5) 88 thereby convicting the accused appellant Shew Kumar Shaw under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.2. In the present case, five persons were charged with the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The other four accused persons were acquitted of the said charge and the present appellant was only convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses including the Police Officer and the Medical Officer and none was examined on behalf of the defence. The specific defence of the accused appellant was of innocence and false implication.4. On the basis of an information lodged by P.W. 1 Bharat Lal Kahar, a case was registered wi...
Mangal Munda Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-2009
Debiprasad Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Alipurduar in Sessions Case No. 61 of 2004 thereby convicting the accused appellant Mangal Munda under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for a further period of one year.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Ratu Oraon, a case was registered on 24.11.2003 alleging commission of murder of one Pogiya Oraon. In the First Information Report it was alleged that on 23.11.2003 at night one Marang Ashur (P.W. 12), the victim Pogiya Oraon and the accused appellant Mangal Munda consumed liquor together in the house of Marang Ashur. The victim Pogiya Oraon consumed too much and as such the appellant left the house of Marang Ashur wit...
Avijit Mondal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-2009
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, ACJ.1. This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of a writ-petitioner and is directed against an order dated 11th September, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of the said writ-application by directing the respondent-Bank to serve a copy of the application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) upon the learned advocate for the appellant within a week from the date of order with the observation that the time for filing written statement against the claim of the Bank should start running from the date of service of copy of such application.2. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present appeal.3. There is no dispute that the respondent-Bank filed an application under Section 19 of the Act thereby claiming a sum of Rs. 3,08,9,880/- before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. The grievance of the writ-p...
Ajoy Sen @ Mahanta and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-2009
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. FACTS1.1 The facts reveal, on April 7, 2000 both Tissue and Mahanta along with two other persons being armed with firearms raided the office of the victim Shri Bijan Kundu, a promoter in the said area. At that time Bijan was sitting with Shyamal Mondal, Achintya Banerjee and Laxmi Manna. As per the written complaint made by one Jakir Hossain Mullick at the instance of the father of Bijan, the anti-socials not only shot Bijan but also exploded bombs before they fled away by auto rickshaw. The bullet struck the right shoulder of Bijan. The explosion caused injury to two other persons. The complaint was made at 10:20 p.m. on the said date whereas the incident occurred at about 08:40 a.m.1.2 The police arrested all the accused including Tissue and Mahanta and chargesheeted them. All of them pleaded not guilty and faced trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipure, 9th Court held Tissue and Mahanta guilty of the charges and directed them to suffer rigorou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›