Kolkata Court September 2009 Judgments

Chemithon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Department of Atomic Ener ...

Court: Kolkata

Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 6th February, 2009 rendered in W.P. No. 477(w) of 2009. By the aforesaid judgment, the Learned Single Judge has passed the following operative directions:On this petition being received, an interim order was made staying all further proceedings before the patent office. Since the petitioner says that its appeal from the order dated November 7, 2008 is pending and the petitioner has not had an opportunity of presenting its case before the appellate tribunal, the hearing of the private respondent's objection to the patent will remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from date or the first opportunity that the petitioner is afforded to make a prayer for an interim order in the appeal, whichever is earlier. If the petitioner cannot persuade the appellate tribunal to allot it a date for hearing its interim prayer within the time stipulated, it will be open to the con...

Escon Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Harun-al-rashid and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 28th April, 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, North 24-Parganas at Barasat in Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2006 by affirming the Order being No. 35 dated 27th March, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court in Barasat in Title Suit No. 57 of 2002 at the instance of the defendant No. 3/appellant/petitioner.2. The facts leading to the filing of this application before this Court are summarised hereunder:(i) That plaintiffs/opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition against the defendant/petitioner as well as the other defendants/opposite parties herein. In the said suit a decree of permanent injunction was also sought for against the principal defendant for restraining them from disturbing the plaintiffs' peaceful possession over the suit property and/or from causing any disturbance or hindrance and/or from transferring or...

Prakash Chandra Biswas Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR2010Cal19

Kishore Kumar Prasad, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant/appellant in a proceeding under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 and is directed against the judgment and award dated 8th May, 2002 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-2nd Additional District Judge, Alipore in M. A. C. C. No. 59/1999 thereby dismissing the claim application on the ground that the claimant could not prove that he had sustained multiple injuries coupled with fracture on both the arms on account of road accident which occurred on 7-1-1998 at about 19.30 hours near Narendrapur Petrol Pump within the limits of Sonarpur P. S. while he was travelling in the offending Mini Bus bearing No. W. B.-19/6220 from B. B. D. Bag to Jagaddal.2. Being dissatisfied, the claimant has come with the present appeal.3. According to the claimant/appellant, he was involved in the said accident by which he was seriously injured and was ultimately admitted to Shri Aurobindo Seva Kendra, Jadavpur ...

Omega Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Unit Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the defendant No. 1 in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No. 9 dated 9th April, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 7 of 2009 thereby allowing an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff and dismissing the one under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code filed by the defendant No. 1 thereby restraining the defendant No. 1 from invoking bank guarantee being Annexure 'W' and 'X' of the injunction application and at the same time, restraining the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 from permitting the invocation of the said bank guarantees and from making any payment in respect thereof to the defendant No. 1 in any manner whatsoever. The defendants were further restrained from giving any effect or act in terms of the notice dated 31st January, 2009 vide Annexure 'Y' of the injunctio...

Sazzad HossaIn Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Dipankar Datta, J.1. Propriety and/or legality of an order passed by the Director of School Education, West Bengal (hereafter the Dircetor), contained in Memo dated 25.5.2007, has been questioned in the present petition by the petitioner Sazzad Hossain (hereafter Sazzad). The Director passed the impugned order in purported compliance with an order dated 16.6.2005 of the Division Bench of this Court in FMA No. 122/2005, since modified on review by order dated 8.8.2005.2. By the impugned order, the Director held that respondent No. 7 herein, Ms. Sahana Begum (hereafter Sahana), is an organiser teacher of Ankipur Andulpota Junior High School (hereafter the school) deserving approval of appointment in place of Sazzad who is not an organiser teacher of the school,- his appointment having been made by way of manipulation. Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), North 24-Parganas (hereafter the District Inspector) was directed to withdraw approval of appointment of Sazzad and t...

Dheeraj Chowdhury Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The petitioner who happened to be the Head Credit Cards and Personal Loans Consumer Banking, ABN Amro Bank, N.V. and posted at Gurgaon, Haryana moved this Court for quashing of a First Information Report registered at Bidhannagar (East) Police Station relating to the offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/477A/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR does not disclose commission of an offence far less anything as against the present petitioner.2. It is not the law that no FIR can be quashed even when on the face of the allegations contained therein no offence is made out. When court finds that the allegations made in the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence and the allegations made therein at best may raise a civil dispute and still after sufficient progress of the investigation no materials have been collected against a person arraigned as an accused in the case there is no legal bar for ...

Sri Sadhan Mondal Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The present petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with Ghatal Police Station Case No. 113 of 2008 under Sections 498A/494/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Learned Sessions Court, Paschim Medinipur when by an order passed on September 8, 2008 the Learned Sessions Judge In-charge, Paschim Medinipur allowed the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail subject to payment of maintenance @ Rs. 750/- per month to the wife/opposite party No. 2 till the disposal of the said criminal case against him. It was further directed that the petitioner shall surrender before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal and on such surrender the Learned Magistrate shall release him on bail on a bond of Rs. 50/-.The petitioner in the instant criminal revisional application challenge the imposition of condition of payment of maintenance in granting anticipatory bail.2. Heard the Learned Lawyers appearing on behal...

Sri Usha Charan Naskar Vs. Smt. Niva Rani Naskar

Court: Kolkata

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a defendant/husband in a suit for divorce and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1997, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fifth Court, Alipore, District - South 24-Parganas, in Matrimonial Suit No. 36 of 1995 thereby passing a decree for divorce in favour of the plaintiff/wife on the ground of cruelty.2. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with the present first appeal.3. During the pendency of this appeal, the original defendant/Appellant having died, the second wife of the original defendant filed an application for being substituted in his place for the purpose of disputing the finding of the learned Trial Judge that they are existed relationship of husband and wife between the plaintiff and the original defendant. A Division Bench of this Court substituted the said second wife in place of the original appellant and thus, the present appeal is now being proceeded with by ...

Sarada Cereals Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr ...

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. A complaint being laid before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta by the opposite party No. 2 represented by its Director Ram Prakash Behani alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 185/403/406/420/477/120B of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences and transfer the case to the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta for disposal. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta upon receipt of the case records on transfer examined the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recorded his initial deposition. Thereafter, the Learned Magistrate postponed the issue of process and in exercise of power under Section 202(1) directed the Officer-in-Charge, Bowbazar Police Station to investigate into the matter.The petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused in the aforesaid complaint have now moved this Court for quashing of the sa...

Partho Pal Chowdhury and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In connection with a Sessions Trial in which the petitioners have been arraigned as accused moved an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the Learned Court below rejected their such prayer for discharge and framed charge under Sections 366A/368/372/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.In this criminal revision petitioners challenged both the orders of the Sessions Court rejecting their prayer for discharge as well as the order of framing charge.2. Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of this application vehemently urged that there was no justification for rejecting the petitioners' prayer for discharge and in framing charge. According to him there was no materials to support the decision of the trial court. He raised the following points in support of this application for quashing of the charge;(a) The statement of the victim girl recorded under Sectio...