Kolkata Court February 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.
Debalina Dasgupta Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenged an order whereby the Learned Trial Court rejected her plea for discharge and came to a conclusion that there are sufficient materials for framing of charge against her with the accused/husband and his seven relatives under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code with the aid of Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the Case Diary containing the charge-sheeted materials.3. In support of this application for quashing it has been contended as follows;(a) The petitioner has not been named in the FIR.(b) It is the allegation that due to ill-treatment on demand of dowry the victim committed suicide, but there is no allegation that due to an alleged extra-marital affairs with the petitioner she committed suicide.(c) On the allegation that the husband has an extra-marital affairs with the petitioner, his o...
Deb Kuamr Bhattacharjee and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, who happened to be the husband and the parents' in-law of the opposite party No. 2, moved this Court for quashing of a proceeding under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the matrimonial dispute between the parties have been settled out of Court.2. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties and considering the compromise petition filed before this Court as well as the application filed in the Court below, I find this is an admitted position that the aforesaid case which was an out come of some purely matrimonial disputes and differences arose in course of conjugal life has been settled out of Court by and between the parties. It has also been submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and admitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant that after settlement of their disputes out ...
Soumya Kanti Roy Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has moved the instant criminal revision for quashing of a case relating to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the following grounds;(a) The person concerned who filed the impugned complaint representing the company, a juristic person has not produced the board resolution while making the complaint.(b) There are several conflict between the allegations made in the petition of complaint.(c) The date of dishonour of the cheque was mentioned as January 5, 2009, but subsequently it was over written as May 4, 2009.(d) No date has been mentioned in regard to the written intimation received from the bank of the complainant about dishonour.(e) No witness nor the postal peon has been examined to show when the demand notice was served upon the accused persons because it is not the issuance of the notice but the service would give rise to cause of action.2. So...
Sumantra Paul Vs. Smt. Sangita Paul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The petitioner in connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- to the wife and Rs. 2000/- to the child. In the meantime, the husband/petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of such application for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife moved an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of amount of maintenance. After the said suit for restitution of conjugal rights at the behest of the husband, decreed the husband filed a Misc. application in connection with the said proceeding under Section 127 for recalling the order of maintenance. However, the Learned Magistrate rejected the said application.2. Heard Ms. Kabita Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner with Mr. Manas Dasgupta. Perused the impugned order and other mate...
Naran Singh Sardar @ Palash Singh Sardar Vs. the State of West Bengal ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the charge-sheet relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the following grounds;(a) The petitioner who is an Army Personnel and was posted at Jammu & Kashmir at the material point of time was at Army Campus and was not present at the village Bhikari Cheliama, Purulia.(b) According to the complainant the marriage was solemnized on October 12, 2005 at Barabazar, Purulia, but on that day he was at his place of employment at Jammu & Kashmir.(c) A long delay in lodging the FIR.(d) Petitioner's application for anticipatory bail has been allowed by this Court.(e) According to the police report during investigation no evidence was found to establish the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto-complainant.2. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in his oral submission also reiterated the aforesaid points in support of the prayer for quashing. While the ...
Sri Kajal Hazra Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner moved this Court for quashing of a charge-sheet relating to an offence punishable under Section 135(I)(b)(c) of the Electricity Act, 2003.2. Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered the charge-sheet materials.3. The petitioner sought for quashing of the case on the ground that it is the case of tampering of electricity meter and during the investigation such meter was seized by the police and thereafter the same was sent to the F.S.L. for test. But it appears the F.S.L. never received the said meter for testing and there was no material on record to show that the meter was tampered with.4. Now, having gone through the Case Diary, I find it is true the aforesaid case was registered on the allegation of tampering of an electricity meter and the meter in question was also seized by the police. Subsequently, the said meter was sent to the F.S.L., but the meter in qu...
Mr. Debasish Chandra Vs. Mr. TuhIn Bilas Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
I.P. Mukerji, J.1. There was an eviction case against the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah being Case No. 459 of 2004. The plaintiff's witness was examined and cross-examined. The defendant/petitioner did not adduce any evidence. That has been recorded in the judgment and decree passed by that Court dated 20th July 2009. However, the Court when on to record 'that the instant ejectment case be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the opposite party.' This recording by the learned Judge has been the cause of all the controversy in this civil revision application. This will appear from the subsequent events recounted in this judgment and order.2. Against this decree the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is pending. According to the procedure prevalent in the courts below, in aid of the application under Order IX Rule 13, the petitioner also made an application for stay of the decree, pen...
Smt. Arati Ghose and anr. Vs. Satya Narayan Tripathi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Dipankar Datta, J.1. The petitioners initiated proceedings under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereafter the WBPT Act) before the learned Judge, 5th Bench, Court of Small Causes at Calcutta on December 8, 2004 for recovery of possession of the premises in question from the respondent No. 1, being the defendant therein. The petitioners' claim was allowed and order for recovery of possession was passed on May 15, 2006. Proceedings travelled upto the Supreme Court. The order for recovery of possession survived with certain modifications whereafter it was put into execution. By order dated March 17, 2009, the learned Judge dismissed the execution case relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Tapas Biswas v. Shyama Prosad Ghoshal 2009 (1) CHN 183. The learned Judge held as follows:Since the Hon'ble High Court held that Presidency Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction and the decree passed by the Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta af...
Sri Gopal Kumar Bhalotia and anr. Vs. Anirudh Trade and Agencies Pvt. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Md. Abdul Ghani, J.1. The present first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated 21st October, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, District South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 3142 of 2009.2. It would appear that the plaintiffs/appellants after filing the aforesaid title suit for specific performance of contract, declaration and injunction sought for an ad interim order of injunction upon filing an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The record speaks that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants as also considering the materials placed before him was pleased to refuse the prayer for ad interim order of injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs could not make out a prima facie case and also for the reason that agreement has not been p...
Smt. Jiban Bala Sikder Vs. Indian Overseas Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
I.P. Mukerji, J.1. The writ petitioner was an employee of the respondent bank. The bank paid her a permanent personal allowance (P.P.A.) from 17th September 1993. She was paid Rs. 970/- per month. This was a result of a settlement between the bank and its employees.2. She retired after 30th April 2006. She was entitled to gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000/. On 19th May 2006 a letter was written by the Head Office of the Bank in Chennai to their Manager in Howrah. It said that the writ petitioner ought to have been paid Rs. 562/-instead of Rs. 970/-. The excess amount may be recovered. This is the dispute in the matter, not the amount, but the right to recover. This excess payment was provisionally calculated at once by the bank. On 07.06.2006 by a letter they instructed release of Rs. 2,50,000/- out of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the writ petitioner, withholding the balance Rs. 1,00,000/-. This withholding was provisionally recovery of the allegedly excess P.P.A. allowance paid. In March, 2007 a further ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »