Kolkata Court December 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.
Dr. Brajabihari Chakravarti Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-06-2010
This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, on 28.1.1992 in case no. 212 C of 1989. The appellant herein is one Brajabihari Chakravarti who lodged a complaint and thereby initiated Criminal action against the respondent no. 2 to 7 in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulubaria. The respondent no. 1 is State of West Bengal. The brief fact leading to this appeal is stated below, in short :1) The complainant purchased some land comprising in plot no. 850, and 992 under Khatian no. 249 and plot no.979,980 and 981 under Khatian no. 36, 218 and 245, respectively, of Khalor Mouja, P.O. and P.S. Bagnan, District Howrah by a registered deed on 23.11.1974 from the respondent no. 1 and 2 and their deceased mother. He had been possessing the land and paying taxes and rent. That property he purchased was being looked after by his brothers Rasbihari Chakravorti and Banshidhari Charkavorti. Since 1987 the r...
Union of India Vs. Surya Alloy Industries Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. This appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for declaration and consequential relief and is directed against an order dated June 30, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of the suit by directing the defendant to refer the disputes involved in the suit to Arbitrator in accordance with the agreement between the parties. Being dissatisfied, the defendant has come up with this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Mr. Mitra, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffrespondent, at the outset, has taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that by the order impugned the learned Trial Judge having in reality passed a direction under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act), no appeal lies against such order under the Act. In support of his contention, Mr. Mitra has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surekha ...
Amrik Singh Vs. Magma Fincorp Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter called the Act) was filed by the petitioner challenging an award made and published by the arbitrator on 17th December 2009. According to the records, this application was filed on 26th August 2010. Prima facie, it appeared to this court to be barred by limitation. Therefore, I did not admit it when it was moved on 14th September 2010. I asked the parties to file affidavits to ascertain whether the application was filed within time. 2. Such an exercise became necessary because of Section 34 of the Act. It says that an application to set aside an award has to be made within three months from the date of its receipt by the party making the application. It can be made within a further period of 30 days on satisfying the court that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within that time, but not thereafter. Now, it is well settled that once, the period of 30 days after the...
Sonali Das at Furi Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. On March 27, 1998 at about 10.30 a.m. Kanai Das victim along with two masons Shyama Kuda and Napla Pahadia was digging the plinth of a building on a land adjacent to their house. Suddenly Sonali Das @ Furi Das the appellant above named stabbed Kanai Das on his back with a sharp knife. Kanai started screaming and fainted in pain. He was rushed to Mansayer Hospital where the Doctor declared him dead. P.W. 1, 2 and 3 being the relatives of Kanai witnessed the incident. It was also alleged that the neighbours being PW 8 and 9 also witnessed the incident. However, they denied having witnessed the same, during trial and they were declared hostile.2. Police arrested Furi and charged her for the offence committed, inter alia, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Furi pleaded not guilty and opted to be tried. Altogether 13 witnesses were examined. PW 1, 2 and 3 were relatives of the victim. PW 1 Radheyshyam Das was the brother of victim. He made the written complaint to the Police whi...
Smt. Doli Manna Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated November 29, 2010 is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents are not permitting her to operate the sawmill mentioned in the licence dated November 2, 2010 (at p.52). 2. In view of an order of this Court dated May 18, 2010 (at p.28) in W.P.No.3619(W) of 2010, the sawmill was closed on the grounds that there was no valid licence to operate it. It was made clear in the order that until a licence was obtained for operating the mill, machinery installed therein would remain sealed. 3. The erstwhile owner transferred the mill to the petitioner. Then in terms of the provisions of r.4(A) of the West Bengal Forest (Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mills and other wood-Based Industries) Rules, 1982 the authorised officer permitted the change of ownership and issued the licence dated November 2, 2010 entitling the petitioner to run the mill. 4. Mr Dutta, counsel for the respondents, has submitted that because of the order of this Court dated ...
Dilip Bhattacharya and ors. Vs. Ratan Kumar Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Two revisional applications have been filed by the defendants/petitioners for challenging two orders passed by the Learned Trial Judge in the plaintiffs suit for declaration of his tenancy right, recovery of possession and damages and 2 also for permanent injunction. By an order dated 20th September, 2006, the defendants application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code was rejected on contest. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in civil revisional application being C.O. No. 3755 of 2007. 2. By subsequent order dated 23-02-2010, the plaintiffs application for amendment of plaint was allowed by the Learned Trail Judge. The said order is under challenge in Civil Revisional application being C.O. No. 1100 of 2010. Since both the applications are, to some extent, related to each other, both the applications are taken up for hearing together. Re: C.O. No. 1100 of 20103. Though subsequent to the dismissal of the defendants application und...
Shri Shree Krishna Bahety. Vs. Sukhpal Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in T.S. No. 2300 of 2009, two applications filed by the respective parties were disposed of by the Learned Trial Judge. By the first part of the said order, the plaintiffs prayer for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to sue afresh on the self same cause of action, was allowed by the Learned Trial Judge. By the latter part of the impugned order the defendants application for reference under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected by the Learned Trial Judge. Since this part of the impugned order is appealable under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the defendant does not want to challenge the said part of the impugned order before this Court. Leave has been sought for permitting the defendant to file an appeal for challenging this part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum. In my view no such leave is necessary for challenging this part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum. It is thus made clear...
Banibrata Das. Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Inv ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner or applicant submits that this matter is tagged with CRR No. 3114 of 2008, but there is no order to that effect and the impugned order has not been passed against the present applicant. 3. Learned Advocate for the O.P. No. 1 also submits that the impugned order has not been passed against the present applicant.4. Learned Advocate for the O.P. No. 2 submits that he has nothing to say in this regard and necessary order may be passed. 5. As it appears that there is no specific order for hearing this matter together with CRR No. 3114 of 2008, but the record of this matter has been kept with CRR 3114 of 2008, so this matter is also being taken up for hearing separately and is being disposed of separately. 6. This Revisional Application has been directed against order No. 31 dated 27.6.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Special case No. 15 of 2005 arising out of ...
Uday Sankar Bhattacharyya at Bhattacharjee. Vs. the Superintendent of ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. This criminal revision has been directed against the order of the learned Special Judge, 3rd Court at Barasat, North 24 Parganas bearing No. 31 dated 27.06.2008 whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the petition of the petitioner/applicant Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya @ Bhattacharjee under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code filed on 23.07.2007 and fixed 02.09.2008 for framing of charge with the finding that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the present applicant under sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 2. It is the case of the applicant that on the basis of an information furnished by Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anticorruption branch, Kolkata, Crime No. RC/36/2002 dated 30.12.02 was registered for investigation. It was alleged in the said information that while the app...
Gama Alias Md.Anwar and Others Vs. the State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Dec-03-2010
1. THIS APPEAL:- Vide judgement and order dated January 22 , 1998 passed by the learned third Additional Session Judge, Howrah altogather seven appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof inter alia for committing murder of a local Councillor at Bally. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of the learned Additional Session Judge, the seven appellants filed the instant appeal and obtained release on bail by way of suspension of sentence. After the appeal was made ready and started appearing in the list all the appellants absconded and nobody represented them before the court. As a result, the court could not take up the hearing subsequently the appellants numbers three, four and seven could be apprehended as per the report of the Police. Appellant number five died during the pendency of the appeal. The appellants numbers one, two and six are still at large. We gave adjournments from time to time to ena...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »