Kolkata Court May 2012 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.
Firoj Ali Molla and Another Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-5,, Barasat in Sessions Case No.SC-2(3) of 2005 (S.T.1(7) of 2005) whereby the appellants Firoj Ali Molla and Siraj Ali were convicted for committing offence under Section 498A/306 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and two years respectively together with fine with a direction that the imprisonment would run concurrently. The appellants have challenged the judgment on the following grounds; a) that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective; b) that the learned Judge was oblivious of the material discrepancies and contradiction in the evidence on record; c) that the learned Judge relied on the evidence of interested witnesses only and passed the judgment; d) that the judgment impugned, being bad in law, is liable to be set aside; To appreci...
Orissa Manganese and Minerals Limited Vs. Synergy Ispat Private Limite ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-2012
K. J. Sengupta, J. By consent of the parties the appeal and application have been taken up for hearing together dispensing with all the formalities for the sake of speedy disposal of the entire matter before us. Therefore, we need to admit the appeal. There will be order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion, however all undertakings are discharged. This appeal is against the impugned judgment and order dated 29th March, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge by which His Lordship passed an order of injunction restraining the appellant from selling any part of the extract from mine in question in Jharkhand or to deal with in any manner whatsoever without first offering the entire extract to the petitioner (respondent herein) in terms of the agreement. The learned Trial Judge after granting aforesaid ad interim relief has been pleased to keep the interlocutory application pending for final hearing on affidavits. The short fact leading to taking action under Section 9 of the Ar...
Sri Kalipada Maity Vs. Sri Nakul Chandra Santra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of a pre-emptee and is directed against the judgment dated March 31, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Contai in Misc. Appeal No.32 of 2006 thereby reversing the Order No.27 dated January 18, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Contai in Misc. Case No.55 of 2001 and thereby rejecting the Misc. Case under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The opposite party instituted an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption against the petitioner in respect of the land in case. The said application was contested by the petitioner/opposite party. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application being registered as Misc. Case No.55 of 2001. The pre-emptor preferred a Misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No.32 of 2006 and that Misc. Appeal was allowed on contest without...
Pashupati Mahato Vs. Dipali Mahato
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the respondent and is directed against the Order dated January 6, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Purulia in Matrimonial Suit No.10 of 2009 thereby dismissing an application for amendment of the written statement. The wife/opposite party herein instituted a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.10 of 2009 against husband/petitioner herein praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The husband/petitioner herein is contesting the said suit and the suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing. At that stage, the husband filed an application for the amendment of the written statement and that prayer was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, I find that by the proposed a...
Sri Ajit Dutta and Another Vs. Smt. Kalpana Pal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated September 17, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.84 of 2009 thereby rejecting an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth shall be called ‘C.P.C.’) filed by the plaintiffs with costs. The short case is that the plaintiffs / opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.84 of 2009 praying for a decree of declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The defendants are contesting the said suit. On August 11, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff no.4, Shyamsunder Pal died intestate as bachelor on June 30, 2009 and his heirs are already on record as other plaintiffs. So, the other plaintiffs prayed for expunge of the name of the plaintiff No.4. The defendants / petiti...
Manoj Kumar Dey and Others Vs. Smt. Lily De and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants and is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 21, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No.18 of 2006 thereby remanding the suit being Title Suit No.23 of 2000 for fresh trial upon certain directions. The question is if the impugned judgment and decree should be sustained. The following facts are not in dispute:- (i) One Sukhodamayee Dey had two sons viz. Atul Krishna Dey and Gostolal Dey. Atul Krishna Dey had five sons and out of them Rameswar and Baneswar died as bachelors and out of the remaining three sons, Gadadhar and Bisweswar died leaving behind their respective heirs and another son, namely, Gopeswar left India and he has been residing in England since 1967. (ii) The plaintiffs are the widow and sons of Bisweswar Dey. Apart from the plaintiffs, Bisweswar has one daughter viz. Dr. Lini Srinibasan who has been living in U.S.A. for a ...
………..Petitioner Vs. Synergy Ispat Private Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-2012
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRESENT: The Honble JUSTICE KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND The Honble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR MONDAL T.A.No.42 of 2012 A.P.O.T.No.184 of 2012 A.P.No.245 of 2012 Orissa Manganese & Minerals Limited ..petitioner versus Synergy Ispat Private Limited ..respondent Judgment on:9. 5.2012.K.J. Sengupta, J.:- By consent of the parties the appeal and application have been taken up for hearing together dispensing with all the formalities for the sake of speedy disposal of the entire matter before us. Therefore, we need to admit the appeal. There will be order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion, however all undertakings are discharged. This appeal is against the impugned judgment and order dated 29th March, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge by which His Lordship passed an order of injunction restraining the appellant from selling any part of the extract from mine in question in Jharkhand or to deal with in any manne...
In the Matter of : an Application for Bail Under Section 439(2) of the ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2012
This application for cancellation of bail is pertaining to Burdwan Sadar Police Station Case No.78 of 2010 dated 8.2.2010 under Sections 467/468/471/472/420/406/120B of the I.P.C. The opposite parties Prabir Kumar Sarkar, Smt. Munmun Som and Sk. Jamal were enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate on 11.2.2010 and 15.2.2010. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant, Dolgobinda Gupta has come up with this application for cancellation of bail mainly on the ground that the learned Court should not have passed the bail order in favour of the opposite parties Nos.2, 3 and 4 Considering the nature and gravity of the offences and that the post bail conduct of the opposite parties Nos.2, 3 and 4 are blameworthy for which their bail should be cancelled. The Burdwan Sadar Police Station Case No.78 of 2010 dated 8.2.2010 was initiated by Dolgobinda Gupta who lodged a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan which was referred to Burdwan P.S. under Secti...
M/S. B.F.L. Unio Ltd. Vs. Trimurti Cargo Carriers Pvt.Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2012
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Asim Kr. Mondal 07.05.2012 APOT 23 of 2012 ACO 10.of 2012 CP 3.of 2012 M/S.B.F.L.Unio LTD.versus Trimurti Cargo Carriers Pvt.LTD.The Court :- This matter was taken up for hearing whether the interim relief as prayed for should be granted or not. Mr.Mainak Bose appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge has totally overlooked the fact that there is a serious dispute not only with regard to enforceability of the claim under the law but also the alleged bills. According to him there has been no disclosure of the cause of action in the petition for winding up. Ms.Manju Bhutoria appearing for the petitioning creditor contends that this point was not taken before the learned Trial Judge. Admittedly the bills have been accepted as and when raised for the transportation services and the learned Trial Judge having satisfied with the claim ...
Pashupati Dutta Vs. Smt. Kalpana Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-2012
ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GA 229.OF 201.WITH CS 52.of 1992 PASHUPATI DUTTA Versus SMT. KALPANA DUTTA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASIM KUMAR RAY Date :7. h May, 2012. Ms.Suparna Mukherjee, Advocate for plaintiff. Mr.N.Chowdhury, Advocate Mr.S.Ganguly, Advocate for defendant 2. Ms.Ankita Roy, Advocate for defendant nos.1(a) & 1(b).The Court :- Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant No.2 submits that this application must be under the heading of Adjourned Motion but not under the heading of New Motion. The application is a frivolous one. It may not be considered. Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that she is also representing the petitioner who has filed the application for addition of parties of three grandsons of the original plaintiff. None appears to represent the defendant No.3 and defendant No.4. I have meticulously checked up the record. It transpires therefrom that the written statement submi...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »