Kolkata Court January 2011 Judgments
Ajit Mishra Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. This appeal has been preferred by the convict Ajit Mishra through jail against the judgment and order dated 17th January, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2001 arising out of Sessions Case No. 35 of 1989 wherein the appellant-accused was tried on a charge of having committed murder of his son Bhajan Mishra and found guilty and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.2. It is the prosecutions case that the appellant-accused Ajit Mishra killed his son Bhajan who was aged 5-6 years in order to enable his maternal aunt (mamima), Jaya Rajhangshi, to bear a child. According to the prosecution, the appellant-accused Ajit Mishra developed illicit relationship with his maternal aunt and for that reason abandoned his wife Smt. Arasona Mishra (P.W. 2) and son Bhajan who at the relevant time were residing in...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Kumar Das Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. On July 8, 2001, two young boys, Gaya Das and Sanjoy Das, were seen together near Hati Bagan by PW-2, going by a bicycle. PW-1 saw them on the bank of the river Ganges in Battala Ghat. They were talking to each other using filthy language. There was heated exchange. Suddenly Gaya pushed Sanjoy. He fell down in water, cried for help. PW-1 asked Gaya to save him. When PW-1 went to save Sanjoy, he had already drowned. Gaya left the place with the cycle brought by Sanjoy. PW-1 initially tried to prevent him from being fled, however, because unsuccessful. The parents lodged a missing diary at Bastola Police Station on July 8, 2001. On the next day, his father came to know that Modhusudhan Paul had called Sanjoy. He was a dancer in a group run by Modhusudhan. The petitioner Amir Kumar Das, father of Sanjoy, lodged a complaint against Modhusudhan. Five months later, Amir came to know that Sanjoy was last seen together with Gaya in the locality. He then lodged a complaint with the Police. O...
Tag this Judgment!Nuna Pal Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Anju (alias) Guddi was married to Nakuleshwar on June 29, 1999. Since after marriage, Nakuleshwar and his other members of the family subjected Anju to physical and mental torture. On June 24, 2000, Nakuleshwar informed Nuna Pal, the sister of Anju, that Anju had fallen down and had been taken to nursing home in a serious condition. He later on informed that Anju had been taken to Kharagpur State Hospital, where she had found her sister dead at the emergency. She lodged a complaint at the Police Station. Anju was in the family way for six months before her death. According to Nuna, she had firm belief that Anju had died due to mental and physical torture by her inlaws.2. According to Nuna, Anju used to tell her that Nakuleshwar was in the habit of coming home late at night and having illicit relationship with another woman. The Police initiated a case under Section 498A read with Section 304B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Nakuleshwar and other inmates of the house being his m...
Tag this Judgment!Anjali Mandal Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Nimai Mondal and Kanai Ghosh were friends. On January 12, 2000 at about 7 p.m. Kanai called Nimai. They went together to the house of Kanai, however, Nimai did not return. On January 13, 2000 when PW- 1, the wife of Nimai enquired about her husband Kanai told that Nimai had left his house on the previous night at about 9:30 p.m. On January 14, 2000, Anjali lodged a complaint with the Police stating that her husband had gone missing since January 12, 2000. She, also in her complaint, stated that Kanai had called her husband. He left with Kanai on that day and since then he was missing. It was also stated that Kanai took loan from Nimai on account of his sons education. According to Anjali, Kanai possibly killed her husband, so that, he would not have to repay the loan. On January 15, 2000, the Police came with the sniffer dog (Roma). Roma entered the house of Kanai and then went to the nearby well where from the dead body of Nimai was recovered. The Police arrested Kanai and charged ...
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!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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahisegeria A.M.A. High Madrasah. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Admittedly, prior permission was granted by the District Inspector of School on 31 st March, 2008 to the School Authority to fill up the vacancy of a Non-Teaching Staff in Group D in the Higher Secondary section of the School with a rider that the appointment will be made as per D.I.S.s latest recruitment Rules as amended from time to time vide G.O. Nos. 1594-SE(S) dated 26 th May, 2005 and 904-SE(S) dated 18 th April, 2007. Pursuant to the aforesaid prior permission granted by the concerned District Inspector of School (Secondary Education), Paschim Medinipur, the School Authority of Mahisegeria A.M.A. High Madrasah requested the concerned Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of the suitable candidates for the said post. The said 2 Employment Exchange sponsored the names of suitable candidates to the School Authority on 1 st July, 2008. Subsequently, the School Authority published an advertisement on 26 th August, 2008 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for ...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Committee, Mahisegeria A.M.A. High Madrasah. Vs. State of ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. Admittedly prior permission was granted by the District Inspector of School (Secondary Education), Paschim Medinipur, to the School Authority of Mahisegria A.M.A. High Madrasah for filling up a post of Clerk in Group C on 27th May, 2008 under Memo No. 877-S. Pursuant to the prior permission granted by the concerned District Inspector of School, the School Authority approached the concerned Employment Exchange on 25th June, 2008 for sponsoring the names of suitable candidates for the said post. There is nothing on record to show that pursuant to the said request made by the School authority, the name of any candidate was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the said post. Be that as it may, the School Authority instead of following up the said process by sending reminders to the Employment Exchange authority for sending the names of suitable candidates for the said post, published an advertisement on 26th August, 2009 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Santi Banerjee and ors. Vs. Smt. Durgarani Chakraborty and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-27-2011
1. This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: - 2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for partition, accounts and damages against the defendants/appellants and also against the defendants/proforma respondents/respondents. The suit property appears to be 53 decimals of land with pucca structures comprised in Dag No. 3336, Khatian No.1093 in Mouja Belghoria, which is now comprised in holding Nos. 26, 27 and 28 B.M. Banerjee Road. 3. The plaintiffs case was that the suit property originally belonged to one Surendra Nath Banerjee and his brother Nagendra Nath Banerjee and each of the brothers had half share in the suit property; Nagendra Nath Banerjee sold his undivided eight annas sharein the suit property to his son-in-law, Gourhari Chakraborty, by a registered Kobala dated 2.9.1938; the said Gourhari sold half of his share in the suitproperty to one SailabalaDevi who was the youngest daughter of Nagendra Na...
Tag this Judgment!Sukti Sanyal. Vs. the Office Trustee of Govt. of West Bengal and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-25-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.115 dated March 15, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore by rejecting the application dated November 5, 2009 filed by the petitioner, Smt. Sukti Sanyal in connection with O.S. No.146 of 2002.2. Since the two applications have arisen out of the same order and common question is involved in the two applications, the two applications have been heard together and these are disposed of by this common judgment.3. For convenience, I am now discussing the application bearing C.O. No.1247 of 2010.4. The trust properties of Biren Roy Trust are the subject matters in the application. Late Biren Roy was the sole trustee in respect of the properties by a deed of trust dated January 6, 1965 up to January 21, 1993. As per terms and conditions of the trust, Smt. Meghamala Roy would be the next sole trustee with full powers and authorities including the authority of appointing or nominating a trustee. Thereafter, Smt. Meghamala Roy (since deceased) appointe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »