Kolkata Court February 2009 Judgments

Karam Chand Singh and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the Referring claimants in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and is directed against an award dated 7th August, 1981, passed by the District Judge, Jalpaiguri, in miscellaneous judicial L.A. case No. 14 of 1979 thereby enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 52,122/- per acre assessed by the Collector to Rs. 75,000/- per acre. The learned District Judge further awarded solatium at the rate of 15 percent upon the total amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 6 percent over the enhanced valuation from the date of possession till the deposit of decretal amount in Court.2. Being dissatisfied, the Referring claimants have come up with the present first appeal.3. It appears from record that the lands involved in the proceeding comprise in Plot Nos. 457 and 460 under Khatian No. 150 of Mouza Debgram within the District of Jalpaiguri and the total area of land acquired was 6.04 acre and t...

Dipa Ganguly and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal122

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 24th August, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Thirteenth Court, Alipore, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in M.A.C. Case No. 363 of 2005 thereby dismissing the said application on the sole ground that the victim died due to murder committed by the driver of the offending vehicle and as such, the death did not arise out of an accident. It is, however, admitted that with the aid of and using the vehicle insured by the Insurance Company, the driver of the offending vehicle committed the act in a public highway.2. Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal. It appears from record that the victim was a Sergeant of the Kolkata Police aged 31 years while doing his public duty as such, and his gross monthly income was Rs. 8,986/- as appearing from Exbt.1(b). Accordin...

AchIn Bandhu Guha Vs. Ashim Bandhu Guha and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 96 dated 16th June, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court at Alipore in Revocation Case No. 113 of 1995 which is being heard analogously with the Revocation Case No. 78 of 1997. By the impugned order the petitioner's prayer for recall of its witness as per Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the learned Trial Judge on contest. The learned Trial Judge held that the questions which the petitioner wants to answer by recalling its witness either have already been answered or are matters of record or are beyond his pleadings. The propriety of such an order is under challenge in this application before this Court.2. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for recall of its witness as per Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure ...

Jayanta Mukherjee Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ4178

ORDERArunabha Basu, J.1. The revislonal application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash proceeding in connection with G.R Case No. 390 of 2004 arising out of R.C. Case No. 2/S/05-Kol dated 18-3-2005 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Midnapore.2. Petitioner herein is arrayed as an accused in connection with the above noted case where officer of Central Bureau of Investigation on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/201/218/120B of the Indian Penal Code.3. Opposite party No. 3 lodged a written information before the officer-in-charge of the Kharagpur (Town) Police Station alleging inter alia that in the night of 7-7-2004, 5 to 7 police personnel came to the house of defacto complainant and they took away the husband of defacto complainant namely Soumendu Mondal (since deceased), after intimating that the husba...

Sri Dilip Kr. Dey and ors. Vs. Sri Sanjoy Polley

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Howrah on 31st January, 1996 in Title Appeal No. 169 of 1994 reversing the judgment and decree dated 23rd June, 1994 passed by the learned Munsif, 7th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 18 of 1991, at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant Second Appeal are summarized hereunder as follows:The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/respondent herein on the ground of default in payment of rent and also on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiffs and the members of their family. The plaintiffs' family consists of plaintiff No. 1 (mother), the plaintiff No. 2, his wife, one adult son and two grown up daughters. The plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are the married sisters of the plaintiff No. 2.3. Originally the suit premise was owned by the father of the plaintiff No. 2. On the ...

Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India Vs. the Co ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: LC2009(2)323

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner holds a patent for a process of treating exhaust gas emission produced during the combustion of coal in a coal combustion plant for reducing suspended particulate matter. The application to protect the invention was made in January of 1999 and the patent was sealed in the petitioner's favour on April 26, 2005 whereupon the grant dated back to the time of the application. The petitioner's essential complaint is the illegal procedure adopted by the controller of patents to insist on hearing an objection of the fifth respondent to the patent without first taking up the petitioner's application for amendment of the patent.2. The petitioner maintains that it is the application for amendment that had to be taken up first and questions the controller's rationale to reject the proposed amendment 'for the time being.' The immediate grievance and the foundation for this petition are somewhat different.3. The writ petition is being disposed of without calling ...

Sanjay Paswan (In Jail) Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ1820

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the convict challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas in ST 3(1) 2005/SC 21(12) 2004.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the victim girl was aged about 3 1/2 years at the time of commission of the alleged offence. The said victim girl used to live along with her parents and other relations in the Bhadreswar Jute Mill Quarter. On 24th September, 2004 the victim girl reported to her mother at about 6.00 p.m. that she was having pain in the vagina and the accused, Sanjay Paswan had inserted his penis in her vagina. The said victim girl was thereafter taken to the house of the accused where she identified the appellant/convict, Sanjay Paswan, the person who inserted his penis in her vagina. The incident was reported to the police at about 8.15 p.m. on the same day and a criminal case was thereafter started against...

Gopal Chandra Kundu and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ419Cal

Debi Prasad Sengupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 10, 2003 in C.O. No. 15974 (W) of 1995 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. The writ petitioners/appellants were appointed on contract basis as Temporary Site Engineers on a consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month without any other allowance and any other benefit. The writ petition was preferred before this Court praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for regularizing their services. The writ petition was dismissed and hence, the present appeal.3. Admittedly, the writ petitioners appellants were appointed on contract basis and an agreement was also executed between the bank and the writ petitioners for such appointment. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants refers to the advertisement inviting applications for appointment in the said post of Temporary Site Engineers. In the said advertisement it was specifically mentioned that such appointment wa...

University of Calcutta and ors. Vs. Pritam Rooj

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal97

Dipankar Datta, J.1. The broad issues raised in the writ petitions, registered as W.P. Nos. 208, 5302(W), 5743(W), 5744(W) and 18189(W), all of 2001 being identical to the issue involved in MAT No. 275 of 2008, a learned single Judge of this Court by diverse orders have referred the same to the Division Bench for analogous hearing. The writ petitions have since been heard along with the writ appeal referred to above and all the proceedings shall stand concluded by this common judgment.2. The facts of each case may now be noticed.In the writ appeal preferred by the University of Calcutta (hereafter the University) and its officers, judgment and order dated 28-3-2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court allowing W.P. No. 22176 (W) of 2007 is the subject-matter of challenge. The facts giving rise to the writ petition is that the petitioner, Pritam Rooj (hereafter Pritam) had taken the B.Sc. Part II (Three Year Honours) Examination, 2007 conducted by the University. Although Prit...

Official Liquidator, High Court Vs. UjjaIn Nagar Palika Nigam and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [2009]149CompCas446(Cal)

Dipankar Datta, J.1. Ujjain Pipe and Foundry Co. Ltd. (hereafter 'the company in liquidation') having registered office in Kolkata, had its factory located in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh. It became sick and was ultimately directed to be wound up by an order of the company court dated July 10, 1997.2. The official liquidator put up the assets of the company in liquidation for sale vide sale notice dated May 9, 2003, pursuant to an order of the company court dated April 4, 2003. The assets of the company in liquidation were to be sold on 'as is where is whatsoever there is basis'.3. By an order dated July 4, 2003, the company court was pleased to confirm the sale in favour of one Nagendra Jain at a sum of Rs. 20 crores. Subsequently, the offer was increased to Rs. 20.50 crores. After sale as referred to above, the official liquidator had invited claims from the creditors of the company in liquidation by publishing advertisements. In response thereto, Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam (hereafter 'the ...