Kolkata Court June 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.
Prashanta Sen Vs. SwadhIn Pramanick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-2010
Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed challenging the order dated July 10, 2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad at Berhampur in C.R. Case No. 637 of 2009 thereby issuing order upon the O.C., Kalyani P.S. for taking possession of the vehicle in question.2. The petitioner is the accused of the complaint case under Section 420/406 of the I.P.C. He appeared before the Court and his prayer for bail was granted. He filed the application for staying of the order dated July 10, 2009 stating, inter alia, that he purchased the vehicle from the opposite party No. 1 upon payment of the consideration value of Rs. 3,50,000/-. He also contended that at first he paid Rs. 20,000/- as advance money and then he paid the balance amount of Rs. 3,30,000/-by taking loan of the same from the Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Limited being the accused No. 1 of the said complaint case. The opposite patty No. 1 gr...
Bank of India Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.1. The subject-matter of challenge, in this writ petition, by the employer, is an award dated 23rd February 2009 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta holding the workman not guilty of the charge under Clause 19.5(j) of the bipartite settlement.The Tribunal has consequently set aside the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and has directed reinstatement with 50% of the back wages. The workman has made a counter-claim seeking payment of 100% back wages.2. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly are stated as follows:The workman Shri Anajn Kumar Lahiri, a clerical staff, was employed by the petitioner-bank in the year 1971. The petitioner Indian bank introduced a credit card scheme on 15th April 1988. On 24th August 1996 the workman applied for a credit card which was duly sanctioned with a spending limit of Rs. 20,000/-. After the credit card was made functional in September 1996, the workman, it appears, used the card ...
Fastners Inc. and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In this criminal revision invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners who have been arraigned as accuseds in a FIR relating to offence punishable under Section 4D of the Land Reforms Act, 1995 has moved this Court for quashing of the same.2. Mr. Utpal Majumdar, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of prayer for quashing urged as follows;(a) The FIR was lodged suppressing the correct facts and without any application of mind.(b) Before lodging of the FIR no show cause notice as contemplated in Section 4C of the Land Reforms Act was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners.(c) No person can be prosecuted under Section 4D without he being found to have violated Section 4C of the Act.(d) Not only no show cause notice was issued but there was also no formation of opinion and the FIR was lodged mechanically, which is not permissible under the law and without jurisdiction.(e) The pe...
Devbhoomi Awas Limited Vs. Antelec Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner claims as an unpaid creditor on account of services rendered. The petitioner was engaged for carrying out electrical works at leisure villas being constructed by the company in the sylvan surroundings near Rishikesh in the Garwal Himalayas. The agreement was executed on December 21, 2005.2. The petitioner says that though the agreement specified a completion date, the electrical work could not be taken up as originally contemplated since the civil work had not been completed within time. The company claims at the hearing that there was delay on the part of the petitioner which resulted in the completion date being overshot. Both parties rely on the minutes of a meeting held between their representatives on March 12, 2008. The petitioner concedes that it is the copy of the minutes relied upon in the affidavit-in-opposition which is the more authentic.3. The minutes of the meeting held at the company's Nehru Place, Delhi office on March 12, 2008 recor...
Sidwal Refrigeration Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Dipankar Datta, J.1. The first petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter the company). The second petitioner is the managing director of the company.2. It is claimed in the petition that the company, more than three decades old and ISO-9001-2008 certified, is the largest manufacturer of air-conditioning units for railway coaches in India. It claims credit for supplying more than 6000 air-conditioners for leading trains, like Rajdhani Express and the Shatabdi Express apart from five 'Palace on Wheel' trains for different States in India. It is further claimed that the company has been selected by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (hereafter the DMRC) for manufacturing air-conditioners for the coaches (EMUs) in Phases - I and II of the Delhi Metro Project. As on date, it has delivered 574 units including 42 air-conditioned driver cabins to the DMRC and is continuing to supply units regularly.2. Construction of East-West Metro Corridor Project from Howrah ...
Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Mps Greenery Developers Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No. 3 dated 10th March, 2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1092 of 2010, thereby issuing a notice upon the appellant to show cause why the prayer of the respondent for temporary injunction should not be granted and also granting an ad interim order of injunction restraining the appellant from giving effect to its letter dated 4th March 2010 mentioned in the application for injunction until further order.2. Instead of showing cause, or filing an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the interim order, the defendant has straightway come up with the present appeal.3. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the very outset, has raised a pure question of law as to the territorial jurisdiction of the l...
Puspen Sarkar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. This is a criminal revision against an order whereby a Sessions Court has affirmed an order of the Learned Trial Magistrate, framing charge under Section 418/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 20(i) of the Indian Telegraph Act.2. Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the materials on record, the Lower Court Records as well as the case laws cited on behalf of the parties.3. On two fold grounds the impugned order of framing charge has now been challenged;(a) The Magistrate took cognizance on a charge-sheet relating to the offences punishable under Sections 418/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 20(i) of the Indian Telegraph Act, and although all offences are non-cognizable still the police investigated the case without the prior permission of the Court in terms of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(b) Even assuming that the cognizance was not taken on a police report but treating such police r...
Smt. Kalpana Das Vs. Sri Asit Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has arisen out of the order dated May 22, 2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly in Misc. Case No. 95 of 2004 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 thereby allowing the said application with order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- for the petitioner herself and Rs. 500/- more for her child against the opposite party. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed revisional application.2. Challenge is to the quantum of maintenance, that is, Rs. 500/- for the petitioner herself and Rs. 500/- per month for her son, in all Rs. 1,000/- per month. Admittedly, the parties to the proceeding are the husband and wife and their relationship is still subsisting. Admittedly, the petitioner filed one proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. long time back and the learned C.J.M., Hooghly granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 350/- for th...
Smt. Reshma Das Vs. Sri Bipra Kumar Das and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the orders dated 29.01.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 191 of 2001 thereby rejecting the prayer for maintenance of the wife. Being aggrieved, the wife/petitioner has filed this application for setting aside the impugned order and to pass appropriate orders.2. The petitioner is the married wife of the opposite party and their marriage took place in 1990 and one son was born in the wedlock. The husband did not take care of the wife and he subjected the wife to torture and he lastly drove her from his house on 31.10.1999. She has no source of income. On the other hand, the opposite party is a professor of St. Xavier's College, Kolkata earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. In addition to above income he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month by private tuition. So the petitioner has claimed maintenance at the rate ...
Pulak Banik Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-2010
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. In course of a sessions trial relating to offences punishable under Sections 489B/489C/120B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution examined one Kali Khatik as P.W. 5. Since the said witness did not support the prosecution case and resiled from his earlier statement made to the police during investigation he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. Then the said witness was cross-examined by the defence. After such cross-examination of the witness by the defence was over the prosecution moved another application seeking permission from the Court to further cross-examine the said witness on the ground that the witness during his cross-examination by the defence made out a third case. The Trial Court allowed such prayer of the prosecution, hence this criminal revision.2. Heard the Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the materials on record as well as the impugned order and the case laws cited by the parties.3. There ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »