Kolkata Court January 2011 Judgments
Anuj Agarwal and Anrs. Vs. the Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1) An order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the learned Judge-in-charge, 3rd Special Court, Kolkata in Special case no. 14 of 2008 has raised confusion galore the Bar. On the one hand, the correctness, legality and validity of the order has been challenged under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. and on the other hand, the entire proceeding in Special Case no. 14 of 2008 has been asked to be quashed. The question, to be stated preciously, which has been raised is whether this Court by invoking its extraordinary inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can quash a Criminal proceeding wherein a prima facie non-compoundable offence is made out by the Investigating Agency when the actual aggrieved person has intended not to proceed with the criminal action any further.2) The said question arises on the following factual matrix :3) On the basis of a source information, a case CBI/SPE/BS & FC/RC BSK 204 dated 17.12.2004 was registered against Mihir kanti Mazumdar, the then Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Beck B...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Sikha Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated January 17, 2011 is questioning a decision of the Superintending Engineer, West Bengal State Rural Development Agency dated January 10, 2011 (at p.56). The relevant parts of the decision dated January 10, 2011 are quoted below: Referred to above subject for the Package No.WB03ADB26 during verification of original documents it has been found that the work completed by the agency (submitted as credential) is not a similar work referred to Clause No.4.4B of SBD. Hence your bid is considered non responsive. 2. The agency put a notice dated April 23, 2010 inviting tenders for constructing certain roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. A tenderer was required to submit pre-qualification bid comprising technical documents and financial bid quoting rates. Financial bids of only those bidders whose technical bids were responsive were to be opened. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners financial bid was opened. Alleging delay in completion of...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Devi Karel Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The petitioner submitted an application dated July 5, 2010 to the Governor requesting him to release her husband who was convicted for offences under ss.498A and 304B IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. She stated that absence of her husband who had undergone imprisonment for more than five years made the family, having two minor girls, helpless and directionless. 2. Power to suspend or remit sentences is to be exercised by the appropriate Government under s.432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence there was no reason for the petitioner to submit the application straight to the Governor. However, by a memo dated July 26, 2010 the Secretariat of the Governor forwarded the application to the Principal Secretary of the Judicial Department of the Government. 3. Counsel for the State submits that since all the required reports have not yet been received, the Government could not decide the application. He says that within three months the State Government will give...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Amitabha Datta Vs. Kiran Rasaily
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-31-2011
1. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for eviction before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri, District, Darjeeling. The suit was registered as Title Suit No.24 of 2006 in the said Court. 2. The defendant entered appearance in the suit and delivered his counter-claim along with the written statement, inter alia, seeking a decree for specific performance of an oral contract. 3. The suit was valued at Rs.31, 000/- (Rupees thirty one thousand) only. The defendant, however, valued his counter-claim at Rs.5, 50,000/- (Rupees five lakh fifty thousand) only. 4. The learned Civil Judge by the impugned judgment and decree dated December 23, 2009 dismissed the suit, but the counter-claim of the defendant was decreed on contest. The plaintiff has come up with this appeal before this Court. The appeal is valued at Rs.31, 000/- (Rupees thirty one thousand) only. The Additional Stamp Reporter, in his report dated May 03, 2010, expressed his doubt as to the maintainability of...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Himabanta Bandopadhyay. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.1. This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been directed against the order dated 28.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, whereby cognizance was taken regarding the commission of offence punishable under Sections 494/498A of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner in connection with case No. C/670/2006. 2. It is the case of the petitioner accused that the petitioner met the opposite party No. 2 namely Kajal Bandopadhyay (nee De) in the year 1992 when both the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 were lecturers of Vidyasagar University, Medinipur, and they had a love affair between them. The opposite party No. 2 is the legally married wife of the petitioner and their marriage took place on 5th March, 1993 as per the provision of Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Marriage Registrar Anta Bagchi. Out of their wedlock a male ...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Kishore Bhattacharyee. Vs. Sri Ratan Adhikary and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant no.6 and is directed against the judgment and order dated December 5, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Cooch Behar in Misc. Appeal No.20 of 2007 thereby allowing the misc. appeal and directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of their position till the disposal of the suit being Title Suit No.49 of 2007 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dinhata.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein and the petitioner were the contestants amongst others for selection to the post of the Headmaster of Dinhata High School. Post Office Dinhata, District Cooch Behar. Selection process was held and the petitioner though possessing higher experience was not selected whereas the defendant no.6/petitioner herein having less experience, had been selected for the post. For that reason, the plaintiff filed the said suit being Title Suit No.49 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior D...
Tag this Judgment!Ashis Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Smt. Rekha Mukherjee.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated July 23, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.2 of 2007.2. The short fact that is necessary to decide this application is as follows:-3. The plaintiffs instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.49 of 1990, subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No.2 of 2007, for specific performance of contract, injunction and damages. In that suit, the opposite party filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on the basis of that application, by an order dated December 20, 2001, the said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge.4. Against the order of dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiffs preferred a first appeal being. F.A. No.124 of 2003 before the Honble High Court, Calcutta and the first appeal was allowed by the Honble High Court, Calcutta. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the first app...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Anchalia and anr. Vs. Paramjit Singh Narula and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. This application is directed against the order dated December 19, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fourth Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.554 of 2008 thereby setting aside the order of temporary injunction dated November 6, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore in Title Suit No.227 of the 2008. The learned lower appellate Court has also dismissed the petition for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiffs in the said misc. appeal.2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.227 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court, Alipore praying for a decree of declaration that the defendants have no legal rights and/or authority to continue with the business of transport and commission agency in the name and style of M/s. Global Trailer Agency, a decree of declaration that the defendants have no legal right and/or authority to use the trade mark and goodwill of M/s. Gl...
Tag this Judgment!Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chhualsingh Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. In the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the legality and propriety of the proceedings in C. R. No. 821 of 2009 corresponding to T. R. No. 257 of 2009 under Section 379/120(B), 500 and 506 IPC including order dated 28.08.2009 passed therein by the learned Judicial magistrate, 4th Court, District: Paschim Midinipore have been challenged. 2. The present petitioner being Manager of Tata Motors Finance Limited has contended that the said company carries on business of letting out motor vehicle on hire and on loan basis. On being approached by the opposite party no. 2 they extended financial assistance of Rs. 11,20,000/- to him for the purpose of purchasing a Tata ten vehicle truck of model LPT 2518 TC on the basis of a loan cum hypothecation cum guarantee agreement dated 301.1.2007 with the said company. The said amount with interest was repayable at the rate of Rs. 27,950/- in 57 instalments and the balance amount of Rs. 16,850/- in the 58th instalment commencing from 2nd J...
Tag this Judgment!Sisir Kumar Dutt Vs. C.E.S.C. Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated January 18, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: “a) A declaration that the disconnection of supply of electricity standing in the name of the writ petitioner without notice and non communication anything subsequent to the said disconnection is illegal and arbitrary.” 2. Counsel submits that the disconnection is illegal, because after disconnecting supply of electricity on September 10, 2010 alleging theft of electricity the licensee did not lodge any FIR, the assessing officer of the licensee did not pass and serve the orders of provisional and final assessment under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and it is hit by the principle of double jeopardy, because making similar allegation of theft the licensee had disconnected the supply on a previous occasion. 3. Counsel for the licensee, producing a letter of the licensee dated September 10, 2010 supplying information of the theft to the officer i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »