Kolkata Court April 2010 Judgments

Swapan Mondal @ Swapan Kr. Mondal Vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The case relating to an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was instituted at the behest of Godrej Agrovet Ltd., a company incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956 through one of its officer being its legal representative and constituted attorney. Subsequently, the said constituted attorney and the legal representative of the company was substituted by another officer. After such substitution the Learned Trial Court directed the accused, the petitioner herein to cross-examine the said substituted representative of the company. The accused/petitioner being aggrieved by such order has brought this criminal revision before this Court.2. It is an admitted position that initially the complaint was filed by the company, the opposite party No. 2 herein through its constituted attorney Subhas Chandra Bera. The said Subhas Chandra Bera after his examination-in-chief was cross-examined partly. Thereafter, as the said constituted attorne...

Sri Surjendu Bikash Pramanik Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Abdul Ghani, J.1. Petitioner Sri Surjendu Bikas Pramanik by filing an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) has prayed for setting aside the order dated 8.9.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Paschim Medinipur in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No. 1209 of 2008.2. Having perused the materials on record it could be detected that the learned Sessions Judge-in-Charge, Paschim Medinipur while disposing of an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was pleased to pass an order of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner on condition that the applicant should have to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to his wife by sending the same as per the wife's address by registered money order or to deposit the said money before the learned Court below on proper receipts with further direction to restore the relationship of husband and wife.3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with ...

P.P. Koya and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. The present petitioner an accused in a case instituted on a complaint relating to an offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, has now moved this Court for quashing of the same, on the sole ground that earlier a complaint containing the same set of allegations was dismissed by the Court below.2. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered the materials on record.3. Having regards to the averment made in the impugned complaint it is an admitted position earlier a complaint case based on same set of allegations, as that of the impugned complaint instituted at the behest of the opposite party against the petitioners was dismissed as no step was taken by the complainant. The said order of dismissal being Annexure 'P-2' to this criminal revision is read as follows;Order No. Date: 13.02.09/Today is fixed for evidence. The complt. taken no step. All the four accused persons are preset by filing attendance. On repeated ca...

Susanta Naskar Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Let the Power filed today in Court on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Lakshmi Nath Bhattacharya, the learned advocate with the endorsement 'No Objection' be kept on record.A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded in favour of the opposite party No. 2/wife in connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the said order, the petitioner/husband preferred a criminalrevision before the Sessions Court and having lost there has moved this criminal revision.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused the impugned order and the other materials on record.3. Admittedly, this is a second revision. In view of the specific statutory bar contained in Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the entertainment of the second revision at the instance of the self-same party is prohibited unless it is found that the order impugned is manifestly illegal and brings out a situation which is completely an abuse of...

Smt. Sanchita Sengupta Vs. Sri Asok Sengupta

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In connection with a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 2002, the petitioner/wife and her minor child each was awarded an amount of Rs. 1,250/- per month as their monthly maintenance. Thereafter, in the year 2007, she moved another application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the maintenance on various grounds. The Learned Magistrate turned down her prayer for enhancement but allowed the same in respect of the minor child and increased it to Rs. 2,000/-from Rs. 1,250/- per month. Hence, this criminal revision.2. Heard Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/wife as well as Mr. Bratindra Narayan Ray, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party/husband. Perused the impugned order and the other materials on record.3. Ms. Nandy, the learned advocate for the petitioner/wife vehemently urged before this Court that the order of maintenance was passed i...

Sanatan Kundu Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In connection with a trial of a warrant case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 420/341/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code before a Magistrate instituted on a police report the Trial Court expunged the entire evidence of defacto-complainant, who was examined as P.W. 1 on his failure to appear for further cross-examination, the said order is under challenge in the instant criminal revision.2. Heard the Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as other materials on record.3. In course of trial when any prosecution witness after being examined-in-chief and after his cross-examination is held in part, the said witness did not turn up for his further cross-examination in spite of repeated opportunities being given by the Court, the Trial Court is not obliged to go on granting adjournment to the witness for indefinite period and in such case it would be just and proper for the Trial Court to close the eviden...

Surajit Basak and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Against an order of framing of charge under Sections 307/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the petitioners and under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No. 1, they have moved this Court for quashing of the same.2. It has been vehemently contended that the First Information Report which gave rise to the Sessions Trial in question where the impugned charge has been framed is based on false, frivolous and malicious allegations. It was also contended that the defacto-complainant was going on starting one after another criminal cases against the petitioners to keep them busy with those cases and taking advantage of the same to enjoy the ancestral properties of the petitioners.It has finally been contended that no evidentiary materials have been collected by the police during investigation which justify the order of framing charge as against the petitioner No. 3 Gopal Das @ Debashish Das is concerned, there is no materials for framing ...

Prabhu Shankar Agarwal and ors. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and ors.

Court: Kolkata

1. The petitioners are the holders of a registered trade mark 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA with HRB and V logo'.2. A rectification petition under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereafter the Act) read with Section 57 thereof was filed by the respondents 3 to 7 on 9.3.2007 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereafter the Board) praying for removal of the aforesaid trade mark of the petitioners from the register of trade marks for non-use. The rectification petition was registered as ORA/14/2004/TM/KOL. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been contesting the rectification petition.3. The Board had fixed 11.11.2009 as the date of hearing of the rectification petition. The petitioners had filed an application for adjournment of hearing on the ground stated therein.4. Such application, however, was rejected and the Board proceeded to hear the parties and concluded the hearing on that very date and reserved its judgment.5. On 23.11.2009, the petitioners filed a mi...

Mamata Banerjee (Chatterjee) Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Dipankar Datta, J.1. The petitioner was the Headmistress of Monimala Girls High School, Asansol (hereafter the school). She has been dismissed from service by an order dated 10.2.2007 issued by the Secretary of the managing committee of the school. Challenge in the present petition is to the order of dismissal.2. I consider it appropriate to give a composite picture of the facts giving rise to the present petition.3. The managing committee of the school in its meeting conducted on 4.10.2005 resolved to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Accordingly, charge sheet dated 5.10.2005 was duly served on her. The charges, inter alia, related to neglect of the petitioner (being the ex-officio Joint Secretary of the managing committee of the school) to attend meetings despite being put on notice, non-cooperation with the managing committee, insubordination, behaviour unbecoming of a Headmistress, violation of Management Rules, 1969, acting in a manner detrimental to the in...

In the Matter Of: Itc Limited Vs. Oberoi Mall Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2011(105)CLA231

Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The claim of the petitioning creditor is on account of sums payable by the company under two several agreements executed in February, 2008. The first of the two agreements is a deed of lease and the second is described as the amenities agreement. The company had taken on lease an area of about 763 sq. ft on the first floor of the Oberoi Mall at Goregaon (East) in Mumbai.2. The petitioner says that both agreements contemplated a lock-in period which implied that the company had to honour its commitments for a period of 60 months thereunder regardless of the company using the facility. In other words, the petitioner suggests that the company was obliged under the two contracts to pay the monthly amounts contemplated thereby for the period of 60 months whether or not the company occupied the premises or surrendered the same to the petitioner.3. The petitioner submits that for reasons undisclosed the company abandoned the premises and by an ante-dated letter issued on...