Kolkata Court June 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.
Bijan Naskar Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Dipak Saha Ray, J. The present case arises out of an application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 and Section 483 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It is directed against the Order dated 17.3.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, in Shibpur P.S. Case No. 262 of 2008 dated 19.7.2008 under Sections 420/406/403/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to GR Case No. 1993 of 2008. The relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows: The present petitioner/defacto complainant lodged a written complaint with Shibpur P.S. alleging inter alia that the accused persons dishonestly misappropriated the property of the petitioner/defacto complainant by committing criminal breach of trust and thereby cheated him. The said case was registered as Shibpur P.S. Case No. 262 of 2008 dated 19.7.2008. During investigation of the said case, the I.O. seized some of the gold ornaments as mentioned in the FIR under seizu...
Sima Majhi Vs. State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Dipak Saha Ray, J.: The present case arises out of an application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is directed against the Order dated 21.5.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Barrackpore, North 24 Paraganas in Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2011 modifying the Order dated 26.3.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore in Misc. Case No. 12 of 2001 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of Misc. Case No. 171 of 1990 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows: The present petitioner/wife initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband/Opposite Party No. 2 herein for her maintenance as well as for the maintenance of her children. The said proceeding was registered as Misc. Case No. 171 of 1990....
Tata Motors Limited and Others Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 28th September, 2011. The appellants have challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) and the rules framed thereunder before the Hon’ble Single Judge and prayed for a declaration that the said Act and all consequences following from the Act is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and/or void. A writ of certiorari is prayed for calling upon the Respondents to produce all Records including documents and/or decision of and/or Records of State Government in connection therewith. 2. The grounds for assailing the said Act the writ petitioner put forwarded the grounds are that the said Act of 2011 is a colourable piece of legislation and constitutes a fraud on the Constitution of India and violates the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. It is further stated tha...
Kalpana Singha Vs. Sunil Kumar Singha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
Dipak Saha Ray, J.: The present case arises out of an application under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is directed against the Order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia in Misc. Case No. 81 of 2007 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows: The petitioner herein/wife initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband/Opposite Party herein for maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. for herself. The said case was registered as Misc. Case No. 81 of 2007. In the said Misc. Case, the petitioner alleged inter alia that she was the legally married wife of the opposite party and in their wedlock two children were born. In the said application for maintenance, it was stated that her husband was a Military Personnel and used to stay at his place of posting and for the said reason she used to reside at her matrimonial...
Mr. P.Sarowagi and Ms.D.Adhikari, Ad Vs. the Court : This Winding Up A ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
C.A.395 of 2010 C.P.434 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Original Jurisdiction NARENDRA KUMAR BAJORIA -versus BHARNOBARI TEA & INDUSTRIES LTD.BEFORE : The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI Date :21. t June, 2012. For Petitioner : For Respondents : Mr.Jayanta Mitra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Asish Chakraborty, MRS.Manju Bhuteria and Mr.A.P.Agarwal, Advocates Mr.Pratap Chatterjee, Sr.Advocate with Mr.R.R.Sen, Mr.R.Mitra, Mr.P.Sarowagi and Ms.D.Adhikari, Adversus THE COURT : This winding up application was filed against the company on failure and neglect to pay the dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,58,50,000/- (principal) due and payable on account of money lent and advanced. The company also agreed to pay the interest on the said amount at the rate of 14% per annum payable every quarter. As on March 31, 2003 the company was liable to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,76,21,740/- including outstanding amount of interest of Rs.20,21,740/-. On failure to pay the amount the ...
Appellant Vs. Respondent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
CP No.99 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF: MAA AMBAY JEWELLERS PVT.LTD.-ANDIN THE MATTER OF: ANDERSON PRINTING HOUSE PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :21. t June, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Pratyush Patwari, Adv.The Court : The company is not represented and no affidavit-inopposition has been filed despite directions having been issued. The petitioning creditor communicated the directions to the company and a second affidavit-of-service in such regard has been filed. The claim of the petitioner is on account of price of goods sold and delivered. The statutory notice of February 18, 2012 demanded a principal sum of Rs.2,18,552/- on account of supply of invitation cards, envelopes and like material against the invoices raised between September and December, 2010. The total value of the invoices was Rs.2,43,552/- against which the company had made a token payment of Rs.25,000/- leaving an unpaid principal sum of Rs.2,18,552/-. ...
Radhakrishan Dheruram Dhanjal and anr. Vs. Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Honble Justice Sengupta And The Honble Justice Mrinal Kanti Sinha 21.06.2012 APOT 26 of 2012 GA 133.of 2012 AP 1.of 2012 Radhakrishan Dheruram Dhanjal & Anr. versus SREI Equipment Finance Pvt.LTD.The Court :- Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion. Dispensing with all formalities we dispose of the application and the appeal treating it as on days list by the following judgment and order In a post award Section 9 application the learned Trial Judge has passed an order asking the Receiver to take physical possession of the vehicle in question from the appellant in the event a sum of Rs.10 lakhs is not paid. Indisputably and factually an award has been passed declaring the respondent being owner of the vehicle so long the award is not set aside. Prima facie the Court has to accept the title of the respondent being the owner of t...
Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Kolkata Munic ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
GA No.1574 of 2012 WP No.368 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD.AND ANOTHER Versus KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date :21. t June, 2012. Appearance: Mr.Sakti Nath Mukherjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Abhrajit Mitra, Adv.Mr.Rajshree Kajaria, Adv.Ms.Debjani Ray, Adv.Mr.Arif Ali, Adv.Mr.Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Sr.Adv.Mr.Sandip Kr. Dey, Adv.The Court : In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the authorities of Kolkata Municipal Corporation to allot separate municipal numbers to lot A and lot B into which, according to them, the premises number 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkat071. has been divided and recorded in the assessment register of the Corporation. Prayer has also been made for a direction upon the Corporation to restrain them from raising a third series of municipal tax bills in respect of premises No.2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkat071. in addition...
Hara Prosad Mookerjee and ors. Vs. Nirjharini Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
ORDER SHEET GA No.1280 of 2012 CS No.394 of 1957 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HARA PROSAD MOOKERJEE & ORS.Versus NIRJHARINI MOOKERJEE & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :21. t June, 2012. Appearance: Ms.Sumita Mukherjee, Advocate The Court: This application is made by the Joint Receivers in a very old suit of 1957 (Suit No.394 of 1957).It was decreed on 6th February, 1963. It was a partition and administration suit. It appears that it was decreed on consent. The scope of the application before me today is very short. It arises out of clause 8 of the decree. It provided that the front portion of premises No.25 Nimtalaghat Street, Kolkata was not to be sold. MRS.Mukherjee, learned Advocate, submits that this provision was made in the decree because that part of the property comprised the thakurbari. Joint Receivers were appointed under this decree. The applicants are the joint Receivers after several replacements were mad...
Harsh Vardhan Lodha and ors. Vs. Devendra Kumar Mantri and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE GA No.3356 of 2011 APOT No.551 of 2010 PLA No.242 of 2004 HARs.VARDHAN LODHA & ORS.versus DEVENDRA KUMAR MANTRI & ANR. GA No.2847 of 2010 APOT No.508 of 2010 TS No.6 of 2004 IN THE GOODS OF: PRIYAMVADA DEVI BIRLA,DECD. AND HARs.VARDHAN LODHA & ORS.versus AJAY KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.GA No.3114 of 2010 APOT No.550 OF 201.PLA No.242 OF 200.IN THE GOODS OF: PRIYAMVADA DEVI BIRLA,DECD. AND HARSHVARDHAN LODHA & ORS.versus PRADIP KUMAR KHAITAN GA No.3116 OF 201.APOT No.551 OP 201.PLA No.242 OF 200.IN THE GOODS OF: PRIYAMVADA DEVI BIRLA,DECD. AND IN THE MATTER OF: HARSHVARDHAN LODHA & ORS.versus DEVENDRA KUMAR MANTRI & ANR. 2 APO No.242 OP 201.TS No.6 OF 200.IN THE GOODS OF: HARSHVARDHAN LODHA & ORS.versus AJAY KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.APO No.243 OF 201.TS No.6 OF 200.IN THE GOODS OF: PRIYAMVADA DEVI BIRLA,DECD. AND IN THE MATTER OF: HARSHVARDHAN LODHA & ORS.versus AJAY KUMAR NEWAR & ORS.APO No.244 OF 201.TS No.6 OF 200.IN THE GOODS ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »