Kolkata Court February 2011 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.
Jinnath Mistry Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the police whom the petitioner repeatedly approached are not taking necessary steps for protecting the petitioners life and property. He invites me to make an order directing the police to act properly. 2. Power under art.226 is not to be exercised for making a vague seamless order. If inspite of information given by the petitioner about commission of any cognizable offence by the private respondents the police did not register any FIR, the petitioner ought to have approached the Magistrate seeking an order under s.156(3) or s.190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The allegation that when the petitioner visited the police station and requested the police officers to register a case against the private respondents that they forcibly took away the sale proceeds he was brining after selling a part of his property, the police officers registered a false case against him compelling him to take bail, cannot be made the foundation for makin...
Prasant Kumar Daw. Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner praying for an appropriate order and direction for expeditious trial of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the defacto-complainant of G.R. case No. 1666/2004 now pending before the Court of learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta and the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 are the co-owners/ cooccupants of their ancestral property situated at 12B, Nanda Mullick Lane, Kolkatta 700 006. In between 19.10.2004 and 27.10.2004 the opposite parties No. 2 to 6/accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy, trespassed into the rooms of the petitioner by breaking the padlock and committed theft of his household items worth about Rs. 80,000/-. On the basis of his application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code complaint case ...
Ananda Paul and ors. Vs. the State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore, sentencing each of the appellants Ananda Paul and Smt. Ghanteswari Paul to suffer R.I. for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, and also to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two months under Section 201/34 Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge further sentenced Ghanteswari to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for two months under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. Each of the appellants Mukunda Paul and Sandhya Dey was sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for two months under Section 498A Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge directed that all the sentences would run concurrently. Appellant Ghanteswar...
Smt. Padmabati MitrA. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-21-2011
1. The petitioner herein, is the widow of an employee of Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region who was posted at Rangpo Drilling Camp, Sikkim as Camp-in-Charge at the relevant time. 2. The said employee, namely, the husband of the petitioner met with a motor accident on 18 th October, 1982 along with other employees while returning from Darjeeling. The vehicle in question belonged to the department namely, Geological Survey of India Ltd. 3. In view of the aforesaid motor accident, the husband of the petitioner and some other persons died in spot. The respondent authorities, thereafter, sanctioned family pension to the petitioner under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with effect from 19 th October 1982. The petitioner also filed a motor accident claim case demanding payment of compensation and insurance amount. The said motor accident claim case was registered as MACC Case No. 34 of 1985 and 35 of 1985. After final disposal of the motor accident claim case the petitioner herein was award...
Kankanika Mallick. Vs. Partha Pratim Mallick.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. These two applications are taken up for hearing analogously since the two applications have arisen out of the same matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.11 of 2007 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Twelfth Court, Alipore.2. The wife is the petitioner of the application being C.O. No.2886 of 2010 and she has come up against the order no.53 dated June 14, 2010 and the order no.52 dated July 7, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Twelfth Court, Alipore in the said matrimonial suit. The other application being C.O. No.3166 of 2010 has arisen out of the order dated 53 dated September 14, 2010 passed by the same learned Additional District Judge in the said matrimonial suit.3. or convenience, I am taking up the C.O. No.2886 of 2010 first.4. The wife/petitioner herein is the respondent of the Matrimonial Suit No.11 of 2007 under the Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the husband/opposite party herein. The said matrimonial suit was...
Technoshop Private Limited Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. This is an application filed under Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the defendant was a monthly tenant and paid a sum of Rs.24,487.50 per month as rent. Pursuant to notice issued under Section 13(6) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act C. S. No.496 of 1992 was filed. Such suit was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit and in 2008, pursuant to notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act C. S. No. 258 of 2008 has been filed. In the said suit the eviction of the defendant was sought by recovery of vacant possession besides mesne profits. In the affidavit filed by the defendant to the instant application except for mention of non-payment of cost which was a condition precedent for filing of the subsequent suit, no other defence has been taken. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a decree of vacant possession. 3. Counsel for the defendant in opposing the ...
Manikyaram Chatuspati. Vs. Shrimati Sikha Dev and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. These two applications are at the instance of the plaintiff and are directed against the order no.39 dated March 1, 2008 and order no.50 dated August 13, 2008 both passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, at Midnapore in Title Suit No.172 of 2005.2. Since both the applications are related to the same matter as to payment arrears of rent and they are inter-related, both the applications are taken up together for hearing and they are disposed of by this common judgment.3. For convenience, I am taking up the C.O. No.3119 of 2008. The plaintiff/petitioner herein has challenged the order passed on the application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the defendant is not a defaulter in respect of payment of rent till date. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been preferred.4. Mr. Mahato, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contends ...
Deepak Kr. Prahladka Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
1. Saswati Samaddar was a Commercial Clerk posted at Kolkata Railway Station. On February 25, 2010, she joined in the said post, after getting employment in the Railway. On April 30, 2010, she was on duty in Counter No. 4 in the Booking Office. One of her friends came to meet her. She was required to go to R.G. Kar Hospital. There was not many crowd at the Counter. Saswati took leave from the booking Counter and went out of the railway station along with her friend. They moved towards Gajnavi Bridge when her friend boarded an auto-rickshaw and went away. It was about half past five, Saswati noticed that a girl got down from a taxi and was proceeding to the bridge in nervous condition. The girl was wearing skimpy dress which attracted Saswatis attention. The girl did not have slippers on and her hair was unfastened. She was found to be terror stricken having her both hands folded on her chest. Saswati called her. The girl ignored the call and tried to proceed fast. Saswati called her ag...
Md Najrul Islam Vs. the Union of India, Service Through the Secretary, ...
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2011
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, Member (Judicial) 1. The writ petition which was filed before the Calcutta High Court was transferred to this Bench as per provision of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007 and renumbered as T A 19 of 2010. 2. The fact as stated in the application may be summarized as follows:- 3. The petitioner joined in the Indian Defence Service on 1. 11. 1994. During his service period, which was more than ten years, there was no adverse report against the applicant and in fact it was recorded as exemplary. 4. One Mani Sinha, W Havildar (Ambulance Assistant) had some personal grudge against the petitioner and he falsely implicated him on the allegation of outraging of modesty of his daughter aged about 10 years. On the basis of complaint, filed by the father of the girl, the authority concerned initiated disciplinary action against the applicant. He has claimed that the concerned authority was not at all justified in taking action on the basis of such complaint which was not in pr...
Saptarshi Dey Vs. the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-2011
1. The Court:- The assessing officer of CESC made an order under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provisionally assessing the petitioners liability for the supply that was disconnected on January 13, 2011 alleging unauthorised use of electricity. CESC has refused to accept payment under protest for reconnection. It is evident from the order of provisional assessment at p.48 that it was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner offered to pay the provisionally assessed amount under protest so that he could create the licensees statutory obligation to reconnect the supply. By a letter dated January 28, 2011 the licensee returned the bank draft deposited by the petitioner on the grounds that the petitioner was unwilling to accept the order of provisional assessment. The question is whether citing reg.6.4 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007 the licensee could refuse to accept payment of the provisionally assessed amount on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »