Kolkata Court January 2011 Judgments
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!Rajesh MishrA. Vs. Ms. Esbi Transmissions Private Limited.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
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 22 August, 2008 passed by the learned 3rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata in case No. C/ 23315/2008 (M/s ESBI Transmissions Private Limited ) whereby the learned 3rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata ordered issuance of process against the accused finding a prima facie case under Sections 500/501 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the petitioner/accused that he is working with M/s. Vulcan Technologies Private Limited, a subsidiary of Vulkan Kupplungs, as a Managing Director having its office at Pune, Maharashtra, and the said Vulkan Kupplungs is world leader of T.C. and its spare parts, which are used in marine and industrial application. The opposite party/ complainant runs business of manufacturing various industrial products including Spare Rubber Element, which is a spare part of Coupling and Mr. Samir Bose is the direc...
Tag this Judgment!Chand Sadagar and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The present application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against order no. 12 dated 16.06.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Lalbagh, Murshidabad. 2. By the said order the learned Court below has disposed of a petition dated 20.03.2008 filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for adding and summoning four accused persons namely, Chand Sadagor, Sadek Ali, Usuf Nabi and Mofakkarul @ Mofajjarul Islam and allowed the same on the grounds stated therein. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the aforesaid added four accused persons against whom summons have been issued for appearance have filed this revisional application contending inter alia, that in the FIR lodged by the defacto complainant Ajijul Rahaman against fifteen accused persons including the four petitioners herein it was alleged inter alia, that on 29.06.2003 at about 3:15 p.m. all the fifteen accused persons being armed with fire a...
Tag this Judgment!Ranabir Saha Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. In the instant application under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Cr. P. C., the proceedings in Special Case No. 4/1999 including order dated 27.04.2004 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, now pending before the learned Special Judge, 3rd Court, Kolkata has been sought to be quashed. 2. The petitioner contends that he joined as Junior Land Officer in the West Bengal Government Service in 1973 and thereafter joined the Calcutta Dock Labour Board as an Accounts Officer in September, 1990. In January, 1993 he was promoted to the rank of Executive Officer (DC & SW) and in 1970 was given an ad hoc appointment as Deputy Chairman of said Dock Labour Board by the Central Government. But before assumption of charge he became a scapegoat of vested interest and was falsely implicated in a criminal case registered with the CBI being RC 14(A) 1997 dated 25.02.1997 which resulted in submitting a charge sheet for his prosecution for acquiring a...
Tag this Judgment!Giridharilal Sarogi Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-28-2011
1. The present revisional application under Section 401/482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of judgement and acquittal dated 25.11.2009 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta in connection with the T.R. Case No. 716 of 2000 arising out of G.R. Case No. 896 of 1999 in connection with Burrabazar P.S. Case No. 418 of 1999 dated 24.11.1999 under Sections 323/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner/complainant contends that a complaint was lodged against accused/O.P. No. 2 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta under Section 323/352/355/ 427/504/506(ii) IPC on the allegation that the accused intentionally put off the main switch of the electricity of the complainant/petitioner at his tenanted premises at 44, Battala Street on 10.07.1999. When he protested against such wrongful act, the accused without any provocation abused him in filthy languages and slapped him with the intention to cause willful dishonour to his life and re...
Tag this Judgment!Sk. Noor Islam and anr. Vs. Vasant Kumar Jiwraj Thakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.23 dated March 25, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Seventh Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.752 of 2006 thereby rejecting the application of the defendant nos.1 & 2 for passing mandatory order of injunction.2. The plaintiffs instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.752 of 2006 before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta praying for declaration and permanent injunction. The defendant nos.1 & 2/petitioners herein filed a written statement in that suit and they are contesting with the said suit. During pendency of the suit, the defendant nos.1 & 2 filed an application contending, inter alia, that they have been dispossessed from the premises in suit and as such, they filed an application praying for mandatory injunction for restoring the possession of the suit premises in their favour. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.3. Now, the question is whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ataur Rahaman and Others Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. PREFACEThese two appeals would involve same accused. The facts are somewhat corelated. Hence, I intend to dispose of these two appeals by this common judgment.2.FACTSCRA 361 of 2009.On the night of August 26/27 of 2006 around 12.30 a.m. truck no.WB 65-0768 was returning after loading sand in Chanchol. When the truck was passing between Sripur and Bhagabanpur under Ratua Police Station, the driver Sk. Manarul found a tree fallen cross wise and a van rickshaw (bhutbhuti) standing on the road with passengers. Manarul had to slow the speed. Three/four unknown persons forcibly got into the truck and demanded money from Manarul holding a pistol on his head. They threatened to kill him if their demand was not met. Manarul could see three/four dacoits standing with pistol, knife and iron roads in their hands, with the help of the truck light. He initially refused. The dacoits started assaulting him by feast and blows. Being frightened, Manarul took out rupees four thousand from his pocket. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Subhasish Deb Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated December 14,2010 is questioning a notice of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Range-III, Hooghly dated September 27, 2010 asking him to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration fee mentioned therein. The document in question was registered on August 4, 2010.The stamp duty determined by the registering officer on the basis of the market value ascertained by him was paid by the petitioner. 2. By a notice dated August 18, 2010 the Deputy Inspector General (in short DIG) called upon the petitioner to appear before him on September 14, 2010 at 11-30 a.m. for hearing of the proceedings initiated by him on the basis of facts revealed by an inspection. It was alleged that facts concerning market value of the property that was transacted under the document in question had been concealed. 3. Since the petitioner did not respond to the notice, the DIG determined the market value and issued the notice dated September 27, 2010. Since t...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Committee, Kadamtala High Madrasah Vs. State of West Beng ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Admittedly prior permission for recruitment to the post of Group D Staff in the up-graded Class X High Madrasah was accorded by the District Inspector of School (Secondary Education), Cooch Beher, vide WBBNEDN/S Memo No. 451 dated 18th April, 2006, permitting the School authority of Kadamtala High Madrasah to select a suitable candidate for the said post, in the manner prescribed in the said prior permission which is as follows: Qualification: Class VIII pass. As per 100-point roster, the post is reserved for S.C. candidates (1st post). It was indicated therein that the said recruitment must be made through the Employment Exchange and as per existing Government Order being G.O. No.1594-SE(S) dated 26th December, 2005 and G.O. No. 904-SE(S) dated 18th July, 2007. 2. In spite of grant of such prior permission by the concerned District Inspector of School, the School Authority did not take any step to initiate selection process for filling up the said post from the Schedule Caste candi...
Tag this Judgment!Asim Ranjan Coomer. Vs. Nishakar Kumar and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.201 dated April 2, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.58 of 2000 thereby allowing a petition under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendants.2. The original plaintiff instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.58 of 2000 praying for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the opposite parties. In that suit, the opposite parties entered appearance and they are contesting the suit by filing a joint written statement. During pendency of the suit, in the year of 2000, the plaintiff filed an application for local inspection which was allowed by the learned Trial Judge and the learned commissioner appointed in the matter submitted his report which was duly accepted by the learned Trial Judge. Subsequently, the substituted plaintiff and the opposite party nos.11 to 14 filed another application for local inspection which was allowed by the learned Trial J...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »