Kolkata Court November 2010 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.
Jyotikana Bhattacharjee Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. In this criminal revision invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of a chargesheet relating to the offence punishable under Sections 341/380/451/454/457/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas being G.R. Case No. 4096/2007, arising out of New Alipore Police Station Case No. 200/2010.2. Heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties. Perused the Case Diary, containing the charge-sheet materials produced by the Learned Counsel of the State.3. It appears from the submissions of the learned advocate of the petitioner as well as from the averment made in the criminal revisional application, the quashing has been sought for on the following grounds;(a) Dispute is absolutely civil in nature.(b) Several cases are pending by and between the parties.(c) The petitioner Jyotikana Bhattacharjee is not named in the FIR and in the FIR even Pr...
Sri Balaram Majhi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This is an application for transfer of a trial relating to Special (CBI) Case No. 88/06, now pending before the Learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court, Calcutta to any other competent Court.2. The present petitioner along with one Dr. Sanyashi Chandra Naskar have been facing their trial before the Learned Judge, Special Court, CBI, Calcutta. It is the allegation against them that while they were working as the Office Superintendent and the Chief Medical Superintendent at Kasturba Gandhi Hospital, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, Chittaranjan, they have misappropriated nearly Rs. 16 lakhs by obtaining medical reimbursement for Impress Fund on the strength of false, forged and fabricated documents. Immediately upon discovery of such crime, in the year 1996 the CBI registered a regular case relating to the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, commenced investigation and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against both of them. Thereafter, the petit...
M/S. the Economic Times Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of a criminal proceeding, relating to a case under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, now pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta.2. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this Court that by an award published on 22nd May, 1980, on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act made to it, the 4th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal held the workman one Paritosh Saha was entitled to the grade and scale of pay of a stenographer and as the petitioner company did not allegedly implement the said award, a complaint was filed under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is now pending before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta. According to the Learned Counsel of the petitioner the said award was challenged before this Co...
Pijush Kanti Kar and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. This criminal revision is directed against an order passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in connection with a sessions case rejecting the petitioners application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The background facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid order is this, following the death of Babi, the daughter of the opposite party no. 2, he lodged a First Information Report with Maynaguri Police Station against his son2 in-law Uttam Mazumdar. Whereupon, a case under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. In the said FIR so far as the petitioners are concerned no specific allegation has been made. The police after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband of the daughter of the defacto-complainant, only accused named in the FIR. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 moved an application before the concerned Court praying for proceeding against the ...
Shri Milan Choudhury and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. The petitioners in this art. 226 petition dated September 30, 2010 are seeking the following principal reliefs: a) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 to 5 to take the Respondent no.6 under their custody and thereafter place him within Police custody or Judicial Custody to avoid tampering the witnesses; b) Writ in the nature of Prohibition commanding the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take appropriate steps to stop the illegal publication of Uttar Dinajpur Dut; 2. One Utpalendu Paul obtained a certificate of registration dated December 6, 1993 from the Press Registrar under s.19C of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 recording that he was the editor, printer, publisher and owner of a newspaper entitled Uttar Dinajpurer Dut. In 1998 he applied for recording change of ownership of the newspaper with an affidavit that he had handed over everything concerning the newspaper to one Bhola Dey. 3. The petitioners have produced copies of parts of the newsp...
Assadullah Biswas and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. In view of urgency counsel has prayed for leave to move this art.226 petition as an unlisted motion. I am of the view that it will be appropriate to allow the prayer. 2. Counsel submits that the petitioners intending to participate in the tender process are unable to participate for the reason that though they applied for the tender papers, the authority did not issue them tender papers. 3. From the document at p.38 it appears that the last date for issue of tender papers was November 22, 2010; for dropping tenders was November 24, 2010; for opening tender box was November 24, 2010; and the date for opening the tenders is November 26, 2010. 4. It is evident that the petitioners have approached the Writ Court after the date for opening the tender box. Hence I am of the view that today there is no question of directing the authority concerned to examine the question of supplying the petitioners tender papers so that they may tender for the work. 5. It is also to be noted that counsel ...
Petitioner Vs. State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-25-2010
1. Assailing the judgment and order dated 3rd June, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal disposed of the three applications being O.A.810 of 2005, O.A.811 of 2005 and O.A.812 of 2005 by the aforesaid common judgment and order dated 3rd June, 2010. 2. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and order, learned Tribunal was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent order passed by the appellate authority. However, the learned Tribunal was also pleased to remand the matter to the appellate authority for passing a speaking order after giving personal hearing to the applicant. 3. After quashing of the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, employee concerned should be allowed to resume his duties. The learned Tribunal unfortunately, did not issue any specific direction in this regard also. 4. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned judgmen...
Soumitra Roy. Vs. Munmun Roy.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the husband and is directed against the order dated February 15, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fifth Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No.1 of 2008 arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.644 of 2007.2. The short fact is that the husband filed a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.644 of 2007 under Section 24 alternatively under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act and / or under Section 12 alternatively under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that suit, the wife/opposite party herein appeared and filed an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act praying for alimony. The husband/petitioner filed a written objection against that petition and the application for alimony has been numbered as Misc. Case No.1 of 2008 which is pending for decision. In that misc. case, the evidence on behalf of the wife was being recorded. During her cross-examination, the husband/petitioner herein filed an application ...
Biswanath Chattoraj and ors. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.53 dated December 23, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Katwa in Title Suit No.4 of 1998 thereby allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs instituted a title suit being numbered as Title Suit No.4 of 1998 for eviction of a tenant and damages for use and occupation of the suit premises, as described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiffs filed the said suit in the capacity of trustees of Ahibhusan Dutta Trust Estate. In that suit, the opposite party nos.2 & 3 herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. praying for addition of parties as defendants. That application was allowed by the order impugned. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiffs.3. Upon hearing learned Advocate for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I ...
Vinay Krishna ArorA. Vs. M/S. A.N.G. Estate Developers and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-24-2010
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order being No.28 dated 19th February, 2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court at Barasat in title Suit No.220 of 2007 by which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant no.1, was rejected on contest. The said defendant is aggrieved by the said order. Hence the instant application was filed by the defendant before this court.2. Heard Mr. Ray Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the plaintiffs/opposite parties. 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. 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants. Various other reliefs were claimed by the plaintiffs in the said suit apart from the relief for specific ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »