Kolkata Court May 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.
Sidharth Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2010
Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings and the charge sheet submitted in connection with the CGR Case No. 998 of 2009 arising out of Tollygunge Police Station Case No. 50 of 2009 dated 18.3.2009 under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the O.P. No. 2 lodged F.I.R. with the O.C. of Tollygunge P.S. alleging that the petitioner and his family members mentally tortured and harassed his daughter and also demanded dowry. It has further been alleged that his daughter was mentally and physically very strong and being well educated she could not take her life herself. A case was registered under Sections 498A and 306 of the I.P.C. being F.I.R. No. 50 dated 18.3.2009. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 498A/306 of the I.P.C.3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits t...
Jagat Mata Rice Mill and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2010
Tapen Sen, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners pray for an Order commanding upon the Respondents to withdraw Memos dated 18.7.2008 and 30.9.2008 as contained in Annexures- P5 and P8 respectively. By reason of the Memo dated 18.7.2008, the Collector EC Act, Burdwan (Respondent No. 5) informed the Petitioner No. 2 that upon perusal of a Police Report as well as FIR-cum-Seizure list and also other documents, he was satisfied that the Petitioners had violated paragraphs 4(1) (a)/8(c) and 14 of the West Bengal Rice Mills and Wholesalers (Control and Levy) Order 2007 against which Khandogosh P.S. Case No. 03 of 2008 had been registered and therefore, a proceeding was drawn up against the said Petitioner No. 2 (being the owner of the Petitioner No. 1 Jagat Mata Rice Mill) and therefore, he was directed to show cause as to why the seized articles be not confiscated.2. By reason of the other impugned Memo dated 30.9.2008 as contained in Annexure- P8, a similar Notice asking the Petition...
Kasem Babu Mondal Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2010
S.P. Talukdar, J.1. This is directed against the judgment dated 11th July, 2007 and the order dated 12th July, 2007 passed by learned 6th Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in N.D.P.S. Case No. 87 of 2004 (N.C.B. Crime No. 19/NCB/Cal/2004). Learned Trial Court held the appellant/convict guilty of the offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. The appellant thereby was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- only, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:On 25th September, 2004, a batch of officers and staff of NCB, EZU, Kolkata led by the Superintendent went to Dum Dum Road at about 11:00 hours. They intercepted a person in front of Leela Cinema hall. He was identified by the informer. This was pursuant to a specific information, which was duly reduced...
Boc India Limited and anr. Vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Author ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2010
Dipankar Datta, J.1. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, the first respondent (hereafter KMDA), had floated notice inviting tender No. 9 of 2009-2010 dated 6.11.2009 (hereafter the first tender) for supply and installation of 'Centralised Medical Gas Pipeline Distribution System' at Jawaharlal Memorial Hospital, Kalyani (hereafter the hospital).2. The first petitioner expressed interest and responded to the tender notice. Apart from it, two others expressed interest. However, upon consideration of the technical bids of the three interested parties, the bid of one was found to be informal as it did not follow the Clauses of the first tender notice. The other two including the first petitioner were found eligible. By an order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the Superintending Engineer (Works) of KMDA, the second respondent, the process was, however, cancelled.3. Upon cancellation of the first tender notice, notice inviting tender No. 12 of 2009-10 dated 31.12.2009 (hereafter the secon...
Sourendra Nath Biswas Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2010
I.P. Mukerji, J.1. In this case, an accountant in the Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter 'the company'), has been charge-sheeted and removed from service. I am convinced on perusal of the records that this accountant was thoroughly guilty of falsifying accounts, by which works contractors with the company got the benefit of extra payment. But, what is most disconcerting is that in investigating this kind of a financial misappropriation only this accountant who used to hold a clerical position has been charge-sheeted and dismissed from service. No other official was even asked to explain the defalcation, far less being charge-sheeted. If there was a financial misappropriation of Rs. 5,81,000/- there surely must have been other officials of the company involved to facilitate it. The Company is a subsidiary of Steel Authority of India Limited, a Government of India company. In a Government of India organisation, it is absolutely unbelievable that an accountant would falsif...
Gms Marine Company Limited Vs. the Owners and Parties Interested in th ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. Both admiralty suits are actions in rem directed against the same vessel, MV Vinashin Sky. The plaintiffs are different. There are several applications which have been listed and heard. The principal issue raised in both suits is by one Vietnam Shipbuilding Industry Group though the legal status of such entity is unclear and, but for an appellate court order, such entity may not have had a right of audience in the second suit. In the opening paragraph of GA No. 3476 of 2009, which is a petition for dismissal and/or rejection of the plaint relating to the earlier suit, the Vietnamese petitioner has not elaborated on its legal status though the petitioner in claiming that one Vinashin Ocean Shipping Company Ltd is its wholly owned subsidiary, has given an impression that the petitioner is probably a company. The petitioner claims to be a State-owned enterprise of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In the translated version of its certificate of business registration...
Shipra Ghose @ Shipra Ghose JaIn Vs. Bharat Petrolium Corporation Limi ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2010
Patherya, J.The Court:1. G. A. No. 101 of 2008 has been filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant No. 1 for rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. 2005.2. The only arrear rents which it would be entitled to is for 3 years prior to the filing of the suit, in 2006. The claim for the period May 1, 1982 to 2002 is barred by laws of limitation. On a calculation of the yearly rent payable as the amount does not exceed Rs. 10 lacs this Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit. Article 52 of the Limitation Act contemplates filing of suits for realisation of arrear rents within 3 years when the arrears became due. Reliance is placed on AIR 1966 SC 153 and 2006 (5) SCC 638.3. The instant suit has been filed on 4th January, 2006 and 3 years prior thereto would be 4th January, 2003. Therefore, any claim on account of arrear rents for the period prior to December, 2002 is barred by laws of limitation and, th...
Kapil Kumar Katyal and anr. Vs. Praveen Chandra Bhanjdeo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2010
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The appellants were the landlords in respect of flat No. 2C, Bata May Fair, 3, May Fair Road, Kolkata measuring about 2920 square feet area. The appellants also owned car parking places being C6, C7 and C9. According to the appellants, they purchased the flat after obtaining financial assistance from ICICI Bank to the extent of Rs. 71, 10,177/- . The appellants had three daughters, all of them were of marriageable age. To meet the expenses to pay off the monthly instalments, the appellants let out the flat in question to the sole respondent vide licence agreement dated March 15, 2007 initially for a period of two years for a lump sum amount of Rs. 30, 00000/-. The said agreement also provided that after the expiry of the two years' period licensee would become liable to pay Rs. 2.25 lacs per month for a further period of eleven months and for that a sum of Rs. 7.5 lacs was kept as additional amount earmarked as security deposit. The said agreement contained a...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sukbrinder Singh Atwal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-2010
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Short question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to raise a belated plea of jurisdiction of the arbitrator in view of Clause 64(3)(a)(iii) of the general conditions of contract which specifically provided that the arbitration could only be done through gazetted railway officers and nobody else.2. The parties entered into an agreement for execution of specified jobs stipulated in the work order. The contract was entered into in 1973 which was to be completed by October 31, 1974. Admittedly, work could not be completed within the said period. The parties blamed each other for the delay. Fact remains, time was extended without imposition of any penalty upon the respondent. After completion of the work, final bill was prepared and paid. The respondent thereafter lodged a claim principally on the issue of escalation of price caused due to delay and idle labour cost and other expenses as well as business loss on account of delay. The rail...
Madan Biswas and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of a charge-sheet relating to the offences punishable under Sections 148/149/447/448/427/354/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Heard Mr. Himangshu De, the Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Suman De as well as the Junior Government Advocate. Perused the Case Diary.3. It has been contended before this Court except the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 9 all are female, as such question of committing an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by them does not at all arise. It was further contended that no specific allegation has been made against any particular person who has committed the offence of theft.4. Now, having regards to the allegations made in the First Information Report by the victim Dipika Biswas as well as from the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police during the course of investigation, it appears that it was the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »