Kolkata Court April 2009 Judgments

Ajoy Parida Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2582

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 519 of 2004 arising out of Sankrail P.S. Case No. 146 of 2004 dated 23-7-2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1602 of 2004.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the mother of the prosecutrix lodged the written FIR (Exhibit 1) alleging inter alia that her minor daughter aged about 10 years went to the house of the appellant on 17th July, 2004 around 1.30 p.m. to watch T.V. along with a friend aged about 5 years. While the prosecutrix and her said friend were watching the T.V. at the house of the said neighbour-accused, at that time the accused drove out the friends of the prosecutrix from his house and thereafter, took the prosecutrix in a room. The accused thereafter, took the prosecutrix on his lap forcibly and also pressed the body of the prosecutrix. After a few mi...

Bhagaban Dey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2010Cal13

ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner, carrying on the activity of supplying building materials under the name Dey Clearing Agency, booked 21 wagons with the Eastern Railway for carriage of stones from Pakur station to Dankuni Jn. station. The goods were loaded on October 29, 2008. Freight amounting to Rs. 4,27,222 was calculated, as will appear from the railway receipt, Annexure P2 at p. 18, on October 30, 2008 scribbling something that even Counsel for the parties are unable to decipher. At the destination station the goods were weighed by the railway administration on November 1, 2008 at 1.39 a.m. behind the petitioner's back. At 8 p.m. on November 1, 2008 the petitioner received a demand notice dated November 1, 2008, Annexure P3 at p. 19. He was asked to pay Rs. 5,57,758 punitive charges for overloading goods in the wagons. By the time the demand notice was received by him, he transported a substantial part of the goods from the place where they were unloaded from the wag...

Bijay Kumar Kajaria Vs. Kajaria Yarns and Twines Ltd.

Court: Company Law Board CLB Kolkata

1. In this order, I am considering CA No. 34 of 2009 filed by the respondents in CP. No. 10(KOL)/2009 seeking for dismissal of the petition or in the alternative to vacate the ex parte interim order passed by this Board on 9-4-2009 on the ground that the petitioners had suppressed an order passed by Calcutta High Court on 7-4-2009. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners filed this petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) in respect of Kajaria Yarn and Twines Limited on 8-4-2009 and mentioned the same ex parte on 9-4-2009 at 2.30 PM. Considering the fact that the company is a family company and other aspects as recorded in that order, I granted certain interim reliefs; that there shall be no board/general meeting without the leave of this Board; that with immediate effect, the operation of the bank account shall be jointly by one from the respondents’ side and one from the petitioners’ side and that there shall be status quo as on that d...

Surajit Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2895

Kishore Kumar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated. 26-11-1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Second Court, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. VI of May 1997 arising out of Sessions Case No. 10 of April 1995 by which the appellant/accused Surajit Sarkar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was heard on question of sentence on 27-11-1997 and thereafter by an order passed on the same day that is on 27-11-1997; he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.2. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. The five accused persons namely, Gopal Sarkar, Adhir Sarkar, Sukumar Sarkar, Bhabesh Sarkar and Jamai Gopal Sarkar were also tried in this case but the learned trial Court finding no tangible evidence against them to his satisfaction had, however, acquitt...

Sekhar Naiya and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2009CriLJ2906

Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 23rd April, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, 24 Parganas (S), Alipur, in Sessions Trial No. 2(7) 1989 arising out of Mandir Bazar P.S. Case No. 11 dated 23rd April, 1984 by which the accused Sekhar Naiya was convicted under Sections 302/148/323 of IPC. The accused Sunil Naiya, Prashanta Naiya, Satya Naiya, Chandi Naiya, Manoranjan Naiya and Gorachand Naiya were convicted under Section 148, IPC. The convict Sunil Naiya and Prakash Naiya were also convicted under Section 323, IPC. By an order dated 24th April 1990 the convict Sekhar Naiya was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 148, IPC and was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC. All the sentences were ...

Smt. Arati Mondal Vs. Bhupati Mondal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal200

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a proceeding for divorce on the ground of cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th April, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tenth Court, Alipore, in Matrimonial Suit No, 20 of 1995 thereby granting a decree for divorce.2. The respondent before us filed a proceeding under Section 13(1)(la) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 thereby giving rise to Matrimonial Suit No. 116 of 1993 claiming divorce on the following allegations:(a) The parties were married according to Hindu customs on 9th March, 1970 and in the said wedlock, four issues, three daughters and one son, were born.(b) After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife at the residence of the husband at village Kalikapur (Uttar), P.O. Dakshin Barasat. Police Station Joynagore.(c) The husband was art employee of Central Bank of India. He was very adjustable man and always used to try his best to ...

Bhagwandas Auto Finance Ltd. and ors. Vs. Citicorp Finance (India) Lim ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal231

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This First Miscellaneous Appeal is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 2 dated 15th January, 2009 passed by the learned Judge, Eighth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, thereby granting an ad interim order of injunction restraining the present appellants from giving effect to the notice dated 7th January. 2009 given by them to the plaintiff till 16th February, 2009 after issuing a notice to show cause why the prayer of the plaintiff for temporary injunction should not be granted.2. The defendants, instead of showing the cause, or filing any application under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have straightway come up with this appeal challenging the grant of ad interim order of injunction3. Mr. Chatterjee the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, at the very outset, accepted the position of law that his clients without showing any cause to the ...

Sayadul Islam. Vs. State of West Bengal.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2010(1)CHN497

(1.) In this matter direction was given for filing of affidavit but no affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents.(2.) Under these circumstances this writ petition is being taken up for final hearing at this stage only.(3.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is an aspiring candidate for the post of Group "C" staff in Hallyan High School in the district of Howrah.(4.) This is an aided school in which the salaries of the teaching and non- teaching staff are met by the State under a grant in aid scheme. The State has imposed certain restrictions on the aspect of appointment of teaching and non- teaching staff in the institutions of this nature. At the time the writ petition was filed, the position of law was that before initiating the selection process, the managing committee of the school was required to take approval from the District Inspector of Schools and subsequent to holding of the interview, the panel was required to be approved by the same authority before the State t...

Arun Bhusan Guha and ors. Vs. Amal Roy and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2009Cal182

ORDERJyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No. 87 dated 16th November, 2006 by which the opposite party No. 2 was added as co-plaintiff in the suit. By the said order, the defendants' application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the suit and/or for rejection of the plaintiffs application for temporary injunction, was also rejected by the learned trial Judge.2. The propriety of the said order is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of the defendants/petitioners herein.3. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was Justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.4. The opposite party No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his absolute ownership in the suit property. A decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from taking any water connection underneath the suit premises...

Nabarun Chitramandir Vs. Learned Certificate Officer and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ444Cal

ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition dated February 4, 2002 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from taking any step or further step according to the direction of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Durgapur dated November 9, 2001 and the notice of the Certificate Officer, Durgapur dated November 27, 2001.2. Though in the prayer reference has been made only to two things dated November 9, 2001 and November 27, 2001 respectively, as a matter of fact, the petitioner is challenging as many as fifteen requisitions for certificate all dated November 9, 2001 issued by the controlling authority, and fifteen notices to certificate debtor all dated November 27, 2001 issued by the certificate officer.3. The controlling authority issued the requisitions for certificate dated November 9, 2001 under Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The third to eighteenth responden...