Kolkata Court July 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.
Dipak Kumar Das. Vs. State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-2011
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2005 and 17th January, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Serial No. 14/2004 arising out of Suti P.S. Case No. 78/2000 dated 16th July, 2000 thereby convicting the appellant, Dipak Kumar Das for committing an offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year more. The appellant has challenged the judgment impugned on the following grounds: (1) that the learned Trial Court failed to apply judicial mind and, as a consequence, there was fragrant violation of the principle of natural justice; (2) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper and true perspective; (3) that the learned Trial Court believed the testimonies of child witn...
Sultan Ahmed Mullick and anr. Vs. Mehraj Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Challenge is to the Order No.45 dated January 3, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 7 th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.104 of 2002 thereby dismissing an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs filed a suit being Title Suit No.104 of 2002 against the defendant / opposite party praying for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The defendant is contesting the said suit and the suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that time, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. and the said application for local investigation was rejected on contest by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record I find that the learned Trial judge has committe...
Ram Vibhash Bharati and ors. Vs. Coal India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. In the writ petition, the petitioners who are working in E3 Grade in the Excavation Discipline under the Coal India Limited, the respondent no.1, have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider their case for promotion to E4 Grade with retrospective effect from 10 th August, 2007 and after consideration to grant them such notional benefits payable under the law. 2. It appears that the petitioners and the private respondents, holding Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering degrees, applied for appointments with the Coal India Limited. Two panels (for short ”two panels”) of successful candidates were prepared-one for the posts of Management Trainee (Mechanical) and another for the posts of Management Trainee (Electrical). As the petitioners and the private respondents were successful their names figured in the said two panels. It has been stated that another panel was prepared under Cadre Management Trainee (Excavation) which was filled up by drawing...
Smt Mandabi Dhar Vs. State of West Bengal and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. By a notification dated May 4, 2007 the Department of Women & Child Development and Social Welfare, Government of West Bengal, accorded sanction for setting up of 17,512 additional Anganwadi Centers and creation of 700 posts of Supervisors @ one Supervisor for twenty-five additional Anganwadi Centers, 17,512 posts of Anganwadi workers and 17,512 posts for Anganwadi Helpers with effect from the date of their actual joining up to February 28, 2010. The notification further stated that the Governor had been pleased to issue guidelines for setting up of these additional Anganwadi Centers according to which priority was to be given in the villages/localities predominantly inhabited by the population belonging to the ST/SC and minority Community. The notification also stated that the Governor had been pleased to direct that the candidates in the existing panels of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers, if any, should be appointed after observing all necessary formalities for early o...
Paramjit Singh Narula and anr. Vs. Sunil Anchalia and anr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated March 10, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.513 of 2010 thereby affirming the order dated August 30, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3 rd Additional Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.227 of 2008. 2. The plaintiffs / opposite parties filed a suit being the Title Suit No.227 of 2008 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The defendants / petitioners herein are contesting the said suit. The plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction and then, the learned Trial Judge disposed of the application restraining the defendants / petitioners herein from dispossessing the plaintiffs from its registered office at 49/5/H/149, Karl Marx Sarani, Kolkata-700023 till the disposal of the suit. 3. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.544 of 2008 and the misc. appeal was allowed on contest with liberty to dispose of the applicati...
Srmb Srijan Limited Vs. Tribeni Industries Private Limited and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. This is an appeal filed from order dated 3rd February, 2010 by which the registered design of the appellant has been cancelled. 2. The case of the appellant is that on an application for cancellation of its registered design filed by the respondent, Affidavit of Evidence was filed both by the appellant and by the respondent. The design of the appellant was registered on 4th April, 2003. In the application for cancellation, the plea of prior publication was taken by the respondent. In the Affidavit of Evidence filed on behalf of the respondent, the advertisement relied on was of Raipur Alloys and Steel Limited in 2002. This has not been accepted by the Controller as a piece of evidence for prior publication. It is only on the basis of the invoices annexed in its Affidavit of Evidence that the Controller has held that there has been prior publication of the appellant’s design and, therefore, its registration cancelled. 3. The respondent in its reply to the appellant’s Affi...
Ms. A. Talukdar and Co (Fertilizers) Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Offici ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. As facts and legal issues involved are similar, the judgment in this application (C.A. No. 123 of 2011) will also govern and is to be treated as the judgment in the other two applications being C.A. No. 124 of 2011 and C.A. No. 125 of 2011. 2. A Company A. Talukdar & Company (Fertilizers) Pvt. Ltd. was directed to be wound up by this Court, on 9th November, 1998, on an application filed by Indian Potash Ltd., numbered as C.P. No. 12 of 1998. 3. On 16th July, 2010 on a letter for direction taken out by the Official Liquidator, I gave him leave to sell the properties of the Company in liquidation on “as is where is basis”. 4. Sometime in 2010 the contributories of the Company took out an application (C.A. No. 657 of 2010) under Section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 for revival of this Company and for vacation of the order of winding up. That application came up for consideration before me on 6th September, 2010. It was recorded by me in an order passed on the same day...
Amitava Bhattacharjee Vs. Indian Statistical Institute and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. Mr Asis Chattapadhyay Heard on: 04.03.2011 and 11.04.2011 Judgment on: 08.07.2011 This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in not withdrawing the order of suspension issued to him on November 16, 2009. The respondent no. 1 is Indian Statistical Institute and respondents nos. 2 and 3 are its Director and Chief Executive (Administrative and Finance) respectively. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent no. 1. The case made out by him is that his wife Late Ruma Bhattacharjee was admitted to the hospital with burn injuries and died on October 17, 2009. On the basis of a written complaint by the father of the deceased wife, Airport Police Station case no. 199 of 2009 was started against the petitioner under Ss. 498 A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. On October 27, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the above...
MohinuddIn Azad Purkait.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. The challenge in this revisional application is to the order dated 8.4.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Uluberia, Howrah whereby the prayer of the petitioner/husband in Misc. Case No.251 of 2006 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for adducing evidence, oral and documentary, was rejected. 2. On perusal of the materials placed before me, it appears that a proceeding was initiated by Sabina Yasmin under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for monthly maintenance. 3. The matter came to the stage for hearing argument. At that stage, the petitioner/husband take out an application with a prayer to recall the O.P.No.1 and wanted to admit some documents, such as, decree passed in Title Suit No.14 of 2008, Talaknama, agreement of marriage etc. into evidence. That prayer was objected to by the opposite party/wife and the learned Trial Court upon consideration of the &n...
Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Limited Vs. Santosh Kumar Kanodia at S.K ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-2011
1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in S.C. Case No. FA/462/2009 confirming the order No. 13 dated 29th October, 2009 passed by the learned Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Unit I (hereinafter referred to as the “District Commission”) in C.D.F. Unit I case No. 115/2008. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant litigation is as follows : 3. The respondent no. 1/complainant (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) being attracted by an advertisement issued by the petitioner/opposite party no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) and intending to purchase a Microwave Oven having grill, baking and toast facilities, on or about 23.12.2006, visited the office/showroom of the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »