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.
Haridas Ghosh.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The legality, validity and propriety of the judgment and order dated 21st July, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Paschim Midnapore in S.T. No.LXIII/June/2007 whereby the opposite parties No.2, 3 and 4 were acquitted from the charge under Sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has been challenged in this revision. 2. One Haridas Ghosh lodged an F.I.R. in the Goaltore Police Station, Paschim Midnapore on 3.4.2006 alleging therein that her sister Archana died due to burn injuries caused by her husband, Tarun Karak who set her on fire after pouring kerosin oil on 1.4.2006. 3. It was also alleged that the opposite party Tarun Karak being drunken, used to misbehave with the victim and there was discontents between them and as a result, an altercation had taken place between them on the fateful date. The opposite party Tarun Karak poured kerosin oil on her body and set her on fire. As a result, Archana died with 90% burn injury on 5...
Nityananda Das at Chantu Das Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 8 th Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2010 affirming thereby the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate 14 th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/09/10 under Section 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. The petitioner / wife / aggrieved person filed a case bearing No. C/9/10 under Section 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), alleging that she was married with the O.P. on 12 th August 1986. After marriage they lived together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home. Out of the wedlock one son and one daughter were born. The respondent used to assault her physically and commit torture upon her. The petitioner ...
Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors. Vs. Gopal Lal Bhatter and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and its different functionaries assailing the judgment and order dated 14th May, 2009 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge allowed the writ petition on merits and also imposed cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants herein. The material facts leading to the present appeal may be summarised thus :- 2. The respondents/writ petitioners applied for reconstruction of the four storied tenanted dilapidated building at premises No. 1 Mir Bahar Ghat St. within Borough - IV of Kolkata Municipal Corporation by submitting a plan under Rule 3 (2) (e) and (k) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules 1990 read with Section 410 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The competent authority of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation thereafter on 8th October, 2005 allowed the respondents/writ petitioners to reconstruct the aforesaid four ...
Gena Pharmaceuticals Ltd and ors Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The Court: The petitioners in this art. 226 petition dated June 28, 2011 are questioning an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Kolkata dated May 26, 2011 (at p.231) refusing interim reliefs sought in their appeal under s.17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. Contending that availability of the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under s.18 of the Act cannot be a bar to maintain this petition, especially when in view of second proviso to s.18, it cannot be said that the remedy of appeal is really an efficacious remedy, Mr Dhandhania appearing for the petitioners has invited me to exercise power under art.226 for examining whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal was justified in refusing the interim relief. 3. The question whether for maintaining an appeal under s.18 against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal the petitioners are required to deposit any amount in terms of the provisions of th...
Sudhir Chndra Barui Vs. C.E.S.C. Limited and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated June 29, 2011 is questioning a decision dated May 27, 2011 given by CESC in compliance with an order of this Court dated May 17, 2011 disposing of W.P.No.8085(W) of 2011 (Sri Susanta Sardar v. CESC Limited & Ors.). 2. Susanta, the seventh respondent, filed the previous petition alleging that CESC was not giving supply of electricity to the premises in question, though in view of s.43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 it was under an obligation to give supply. 3. The petition was disposed of directing CESC to decide the application. 4. After examining all relevant facts and, presumably, conducting inspection, CESC reached the conclusion that the person seeking the supply was occupying a portion of premises no. Z/3/308/1A, River Side Road. Recording the findings the official concerned giving the decision directed to give supply of electricity provided an appropriate application was submitted. 5. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of...
Gaurav Midha Vs. Professor Asish Bhattacharya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2011
1. This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings arising out of Thakurpukur Police Station Case No. 303/2007 dated 07.10.2007 under Section 419/465/468/469/471 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner herein appeared in the CAT Examination 2007. It has been alleged that the petitioner and some other accused persons filled up several application forms wherein some anomalies were detected. It is alleged that the following discrepancies have been detected ;- “1. Application Forms with different names and addresses but with same photographs. 2. Application Forms by the same candidate with different addresses. Some of the addresses are matching with the addresses of the candidates who have used same photographs for different names. 3. Similar hand writing and signatures of differen...
Ms Apex Industries and anr. Vs. the West Bengal State Electricity Dist ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated June 24, 2011 are seeking the following principal relief: “a) Writ/Writs, Order/orders, Direction/Directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and/or their officials and/or subordinate to forthwith to rescind/ cancel/ stop/ withdraw any act/ activities/ action taken/proposed to be taken, with regard to electric Bill raised against the Petitioners connection electric meter, being ST321636, against consumer no 1131243.” 2. Mr Mukherjee appearing for the petitioners submits under instructions that the petitioners actually not disputing the correctness of the bill are aggrieved by the fact that the official concerned of the licensee has not agreed to give them more than 12 instalments to pay the outstanding energy charge mentioned in the bill. He has prayed for an order directing the licensee to consider the question of granting the petitioners suitable instalments accepting their offer to pay dela...
Ajit Mohan Pal and anr. Vs. Reba Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Challenge is to the Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14 th Court, Alipore in O.S. No.7 of 2006. 2. Question is whether the production of document is permissible at the stage of argument of the suit. 3. The petitioners filed an application for probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act in respect of a Will left by Late Prativa Pal. The opposite party nos.1 to 3 raised an objection and as such, the said probate application was converted into O.S. No.7 of 2006 and it is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 14 th Court, Alipore. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge rejected the prayer for production of document under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the C.P.C. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this application. 4. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on recor...
S. S. Mandal and Co. Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. This revisional application is directed against Order no. 51 dated 25.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Diamond Harbour in Misc. Case no. 7 of 2008 by which an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed. 2. The petitioner filed a money suit against the defendant/opposite party. The defendant/opposite party entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Pleader and took time to file the written statement. Subsequently no step was taken for and on behalf of the defendant/opposite party resulting thereby that the said suit was decreed ex parte. From the record it appears that an application under section 47 of the Code was filed by the defendant/opposite party which was ultimately dismissed by the executing court. Thereafter the defendant/opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code together with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in preferr...
Asit Roy at Asitbaran Roy and anr. Vs. Sumita Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated June 14, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3 rd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.34 of 2007 thereby allowing an application under 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. 2. The question involved in this suit is whether in suit for decree of declaration that the plaintiff is a co-sharer of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, may add other persons as parties to the suit. 3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against her brothers praying simply the relief of declaration that she is a co-sharer of the suit property as given in the schedule to the plaint and that she has right to reside in the house in suit, prayer for temporary restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the suit property. The plaintiff knew that she has other sisters but in spite of that, she filed the suit for reliefs stated against her brothers only. The petitioner has also wanted to incorporate the promoter with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »