Kolkata Court August 2009 Judgments

Swarup Talapatra Vs. Gargi Talapatra

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 18, 2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, District - North 24 Parganas at Barasat thereby dismissing the Matrimonial Suit No. 7 of 1999. 2. The appellant instituted the suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the respondent. According to the plaint case, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on March 2, 1991, as per Hindu rites and customs at Deshobandhu Sarani, Village - Nischindhia under P.S. - Bally, District - Howrah. The appellant is an employee of the Forest Department, Government of West Bengal, and is now posted at Salt Lake and the respondent is an employee of the State Legislative Assembly, Kolkata. After marriage, the parties started living together at Narayantala West, Baguihati. One son was born to them in the wedlock. The respondent misbehaved with the appellant and other members of his family even on flimsy matters. She dem...

Swapan Kumar Karmakar Vs. Sutapa Mondal

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Purulia in Matrimonial Suit No. 70 of 2006 whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the suit on contest with exemplary costs and maintenance of the daughter. 2. The short fact is that the husband/appellant filed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty and that she deserted the appellant for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on the first day of March, 1993, according to Hindu customary rites at the house of the father of the respondent and thereafter, the marriage was consummated and one child was born to them in the wedlock. Since after the marriage, the appellant noticed that the respondent was not ...

Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The appellant booked a consignment of six hundred bags of Flour on May 4/5, 2000 under Invoice No. 180/330477 ex. Varanasi to Chitpur. It further transpires from the record that the consignment was loaded in the railway wagon directly from the truck without having any supervision of the Railway Authorities. The wagon was also selected by the consignor himself. Normally from Varanasi to Chitpur a consignment was due to arrive within five days whereas it was delivered at the destination after forty five days as there had been inordinate delay in arrival of the wreck. At the destination the consignment was found to be in damaged condition. Survey was conducted which revealed that the Flour was packed in old and mutilated bags and out of six hundred bags, eighteen bags were found having mark of dry water at the bottom layer. Those eighteen bags were found 'at the middle of the wagon'. The wagon was examined by the Railway Authorities. They did not find any appare...

Sudha Krishna Halder Vs. Jyotsna Halder

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a suit for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, First Court, Hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No. 1671 of 2001 thereby dismissing the said suit.2. Being dissatisfied, the husband/plaintiff has come up with the present appeal.3. The appellant before us filed in the Court of the District Judge, Hooghly, a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 167 of 2001 thereby praying for divorce under the provision of Sections 13(i)(a) and 13(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the case made out by the appellant in the petition for divorce may be summed up thus:(a) The parties were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 25th February, 1975 in the residential quarter of the father of the husband who was an employee of DVC situated at 17, Akbar Road, Quarter No. E-13, DVC Colony, Durgapur. Thereafter, p...

Vivekananda Halder Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

ORDERIt has been learnt that some employees of the Law & claims Department are attending as defence counsel of the charge-sheeted employees while departmental proceeding starts. Appointment of such employees of L & C Department as Defence counsel is not at all ethical in the eye of law because there is enough scope for them to have access to the notes, records and other documents of departmental proceeding initiated by department including manipulation of official record.In the light of above, it is hereby ordered that hence forth any employee posted in law and claim Deptt. will not be eligible to act as defence counsel of the charged employee. Nor such employee posted in law & claims Deptt. will render any help directly or even indirectly, to any charged employee as it would be against all ethics.The charged employee may, however, appoint any employee as defence counsel except any one posted in L & C Department since the appointment of a defence counsel from among staff is the convers...

Soma Banerjee Vs. Subhrojyoti Banerjee

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14th May, 2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No. 232 of 2001 thereby granting a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 2. Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present appeal. 3. The respondent before us filed in the Court of District Judge, Hooghly, a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 232 of 2001 for restitution of conjugal rights which was subsequently converted into a suit for divorce by way of amendment. 4. The case made out by the respondent as it appears from the amended plaint may be summarized thus: a) The parties were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 21st February, 2000 and had been residing together as husband and wife. b) The wife was at that point of time a student in graduate class in Serampore College. Shortly after marriage, it was discove...

Rabu Sk. @ JainuddIn Sk. Vs. State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2010CriLJ400

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. On a sum total of the evidence as laid before the learned trial Judge it reveals that Rabu Sekh married Malina Begum, daughter of Kalimuddin Sekh, de facto complainant. Malina was deaf and dumb. On the Astamangala day the couple visited Kalimuddin's house on April 11, 1986. At night the couple went to bed after having dinner. At about 2:30 A.M. Kshudu Sekh, the brother of Malina raised hue and cry and drew attention of the inmates of the house and they found Malina in sitting position in the room where the couple had spent night. Malina was found in sitting position leaning against the wall and her sari was tied in her neck and the other end was tied with a bamboo bar fixed on the walls for the purpose of keeping clothes. The end which was tied with the bamboo bar was loose and the bamboo bar was about four feet from the floor excluding the possibility of hanging from there. She was taken to Kandi Hospital where she was declared dead. Rabu Sekh was arrested a...

Dipankar Bagchi Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against an order passed by the Learned Court below refusing to discharge the petitioner in connection with a proceeding relating to the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing of the said proceeding.The supplementary affidavit filed in court on behalf of the petitioner containing the petition of complaint be kept with the record. It is well settled that a criminal complaint can be quashed only when it is found the allegations made in such complaint together with those appearing from the initial deposition of the witnesses do not disclose commission of any offence. At this stage the truth or falsehood of the allegations cannot be gone into nor any defence material can be taken into consideration.2. Heard Mr. Debasish Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Md. Galib appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2, the complainant. Perused the petition of complaint...

The State of West Bengal Vs. Rampada Ghosh

Court: Kolkata

S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The instant appeal filed by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th Februrary, 1990 passed by learned 3rd Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1988. The learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused person namely Rampada Ghosh after finding him not guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case was that on 18th January, 1979 corresponding to 4th Magh, 1385 B.S. the accused murdered Smt. Saraswati Banerjee @ Ghosh @ Anjali Ghosh @ Mona and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge which was framed on 31st January, 1989 and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused person examined as many as 16 witnesses. Of them, P.W.1 is the de facto-complainant and brother of the victim, since deceased. P.W.7 is his mother. P.W.2, 3, 4 and 5 are al...

Tapas Ghosh Vs. the State of West Bengal

Court: Kolkata

S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2003 passed by learned Court of Sessions Judge at Howrah in Sessions Trial Case No. 108 of 2002. It relates to Shibpur Police Station Case No. 276 of 1998 dated 5th of November, 1998 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The present appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and the learned Trial Court convicted him accordingly. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- - in default, to suffer imprisonment for another six (6) months.3. Mr. Safiulla appearing as learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment and order under challenge suffers from misappreciation of evidence.4. It appears that the father of the alleged victim girl submitted a written complaint before Officer-in-charge of Shibpur Police Station. In the said complaint, he alleged that the daughter o...