Kolkata Court July 2011 Judgments
Madan Das and ors. Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. All these matters have been referred to this Bench pursuant to a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court in the Circuit at the Port Blair vide order dated 22nd March, 2004 as the said Division Bench was of the view that the Five-Judge-Bench-decision in the case of K.N. Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 Cal Page 307 was not in conformity with the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as an earlier Five-Judge-Bench-decision of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Nahata vs. Nandita Bose reported in AIR 1999 Cal Page 29. 2. Consequently, the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench of Seven Judges for resolving the dispute as to whether the view of the Five-Judge-Bench in the case of K.N. Mishra vs. Union of India (supra), reflects the correct position of law, as to the right of a Circuit Bench at Port Blair to hear an application of review in respect of an order passed by another Bench consisting of different Judges, when the Judges of the Original...
Tag this Judgment!Bidyut DuttA. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The present revisional application under Section 482/483 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing the proceeding being complaint case no. C-10286/2007 now pending before the learned 10th Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas. 2. The petitioner contends that he is proprietor of Dutta Agency dealing with supply of biscuit products. In course of such commercial transaction with opposite party no. 2 Messrs. Calcutta Food Products Private Limited there was a supply of biscuits valued at Rs. 1,79,563/- during the period from 01.04.2007 to 03.06.2007. As per information of accounts an account payee cheque bearing no. 991448 dated 11.09.2007 for the said amount was drawn on State Bank of India, Belghoria Branch, Kolkata – 700 056 in favour of the opposite party no. 2. On 12.09.2007 the opposite party no. 2 deposited the said cheque with his banker State Bank of India, Middleton Row Branch, Kolkata for encashment but on 13.09.2007 the said cheque was dishonoured by th...
Tag this Judgment!ShIn Satellite Public Company Limited. and Atn International Limited.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. This is an application filed under Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act 1956 for winding up of ATN International Limited (Company). 2. The case of the petitioning Creditor is that for supply of Satellite service to the Company rent agreed between the parties was to be paid. A sum was also deposited on account of security deposit and for default in payment of the monthly rent a notice was issued under Section 434 of the Companies Act 1956 whereby the agreements between the parties was terminated with immediate effect and a sum of US Dollar 2,12,452.78 was demanded along with interest. In its reply to the Section 434 notice payment of a part of the demanded sum was admitted. The forfeiture of the security deposited was disputed. There is no reason for disputing the forfeiture of the security deposit as under Clause 6.3 of the agreement the petitioning creditor is entitled to forfeit security deposit in case of termination of agreement for the reasons contained in Clause 6.2 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunil Kumar Mukherjee Vs. Krishna Kumar Bhattacharya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against order dated 29/8/2005 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2004, arising out of Ejectment Suit No. 174 of 2002. By the impugned order, the learned Judge allowed an application under Order IX Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code dated 30/1/2004 (hereafter the said application) filed by the plaintiff/opposite party (hereafter the plaintiff) and thereby, restored the ejectment suit to its original file and number. 2. Perusal of this application reveals that Ejectment Suit No. 529 of 1996 was instituted by the plaintiff against the petitioner (hereafter the defendant) seeking his eviction, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement. In due course of time, the suit was transferred to the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta by operation of law and was renumbered Ejectment Suit N...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Tapas Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The present revisional application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the proceeding being GR Case No. 417 of 2009 arising out of Siliguri PS Case No. 115 of 2009 dated 29.03.2009 under Section 304A/203/109 IPC now pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, Darjeeling. 2. The two petitioners namely, Dr. Tapas Bhattacharjee and Dr. Pradip Sarkar have claimed that the petitioner no. 1 is a doctor and the petitioner no. 2 is a superintendent now attached to Siliguri District Hospital, Darjeeling. On 17.03.2009 the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging, inter alia, that on 21.07.2007 he brought his wife Smt. Laxmi Singh to Siliguri District Hospital in her advanced stage of pregnancy for delivery. She was admitted under the supervision of petitioner no. 1 and on the same day at about 6:50 p.m. she gave birth to a male baby. Neither the petitioner no. 1 nor any member of his team inf...
Tag this Judgment!Anupama Roy and ors. Vs. Minu Karmakar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The present revisional application has been preferred Under Section 411/482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the complaint case No. 1282 of 2006 Under Section 323/352/34 I.P.C. now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6thCourt, Alipore, South24 Paraganas. 2. The present three petitioners, namely, Anupama Roy, Dipankar Roy and Anjana Karmakar have contended that petitioner No. 1 is the daughter of one Abhoy Charan Karmakar, the petitioner No. 2 is her husband and the petitioner No.3 is also the daughter of late Abhoy Charan Karmakar. The Opposite Party No.1 Minu Karmakar lodged a complaint against them on 30.03.2006 alleging , inter alia, that the complainant lived at premises No.P-01 Garfa North Lake Road under Kasba Police Station, Kolkata 700075 with her husband, one daughter and one son. The said premises originally belonged to her mother-in-law who died and was survived by her two sons, namely, Amrita Karmakar i.e. the husband of the complainant, Apurba Karmakar and tw...
Tag this Judgment!Amalendu Bikash Saha and ors. Vs Smt. Kalyani Saha and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. In the instant revisional application order dated 31.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 8th Court at Alipore in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2010 has been assailed. 2. The petitioners contend that the opposite party no. 1 Smt. Kalyani Saha filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the said Act along with an application under Section 23 of the said Act for interim reliefs. On 12.04.2010 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore has passed an order in the said complaint case no. C-2276 of 2007 directing the three petitioners and the proforma opposite party nos. 3 and 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem each, i.e., a total sum of Rs. 10,000/- per mensem to the opposite party no. 1 until further order. The learned Court below has also passed an order restraining the opposite parties including the proforma opposite parties from committing any domestic...
Tag this Judgment!Kashmir Sk. at Sk. Kashmir. Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-29-2011
1. The present appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 26.05.2008 and sentence dated 27.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Fifth Court, Malda in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2007 (Sessions Trial No. 27(2) of 2007). By such order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Kashmir Sk. @ Sk. Kashmir under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 05.10.2005 at about 8 p.m. one Rahima Khatun, minor sister of the complainant Md. Harun Seikh went outside to attend nature’s call while accused Kashmir Seikh took her to a desolate place and committed rape upon her with a promise of marrying her. Thereafter, he took her to another married sister of the complainant namely, Anguri Bibi in Milki and then fled away. Over the issue there was a Salish in th...
Tag this Judgment!Gouri Sankar Ganguly and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Since both the aforesaid writ petitions are inter-related to each other, both the aforesaid writ petitions were taken up for hearing analogously. 2. The writ petition being W.P. No. 1670(W) of 2011 was filed by three members of the Managing Committee of Calcutta Blind School, Behala, Kolkata, challenging supersession of the Managing Committee of the said institution and appointment of an Administrator for managing the affairs of the said institution. 3. The order of supersession of the Managing Committee of the said institution was communicated to the school authority by Officer on Special Duty and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary by his letter dated 14th January, 2011. Appointment of Administrator over the said institution was also communicated to the school authority by the said Officer on Special Duty and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary by another letter dated 14th January, 2011. Both the aforesaid letters were annexed to the supplementary affidavit being collectively marked as Annexure P/8...
Tag this Judgment!JahiruddIn Mollah at Jullet.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-28-2011
1. Mr. Sabir Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his client is willing to appear before the Court and in that event, he may be allowed to remain in the bail bond furnished by him earlier. 2. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/State submits that he has nothing to say in this matter. 3. This case is related to the offences under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/337/427 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet has already been filed. The petitioner failed and neglected to appear in the learned Trial Court despite specific direction. The learned Trial Court had to issue warrant of arrest. 4. Apprehending his arrest, he has come up with this application before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah. 5. On careful perusal of the order, I find that the same is not suffering from any illegality, incorrectness and impropriety and therefore, without setting...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »