Kolkata Court August 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.
Smt. Gitabala Dashi @ Gita Rani Dashi Vs. Fatik Ruidas and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 14, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Arambag, District Hooghly in Title Appeal No.19 of 2005 thereby reversing the judgment and decree dated April 28, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Arambag in Title Suit No.144 of 1999. The plaintiff / appellant herein instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.144 of 1999 for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and other consequential reliefs stating, inter alia, that the suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint originally belonged to one Kedar Muchi, father of the plaintiff and the C.S. record of rights was prepared in his name showing as 16 annas owner. Kedar Muchi died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 leaving his wife, Ramanibala and three daughters, namely, Kalibala, Sukhabala and Gitabala (plaintiff). They inherited the property of Kedar Muchi. Kalibala died l...
Sanjit Roy @ Kostu Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10/11.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gangarampur at Buniadpur, Dakshin Dinajpur in Sessions Case No. 413 of 2008 (Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2009) thereby convicting the appellant Sanjit Roy alias Kostu for committing offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven year and to pay fine. The factual aspects of the prosecution case, on the basis of which the trial commenced in the learned Trial Court is stated below, in short:- On 06.09.2007, the prosecutrix, Putul Singh (Roy), wife of Biswajit Roy was sleeping in her matrimonial house. In the night, at about 2.00 A.M., accused Sanjit Roy entered into her room, lifted the mosquito net, came on her bed and caught hold Putul forcibly and, as a result, Putul woke up. Seeing Sanjit inside her room and on her bed at that odd hour, ...
Mrs. Veena Iohia Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
The petitioner, claiming herself as the nominee of the life member of the Managing Committee of the Sri Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya, filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality of the notice dated 22nd June, 2012 issued by the Teacher‐in-Charge of the said school for convening a meeting on 29th June, 2012 at 4 P.M. for holding election of office bearers of the Managing Committee of the said school. The said writ petition was initially moved on 29th June, 2012 when this Court passed an interim order by directing that the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 29th June, 2012 may be held, but the outcome of the said meeting will not be given effect to till 4th July, 2012. The said interim order was extended from time to time and the same is still continuing. It was contended by the petitioner that out of six elected guardian members five members have lost their membership as their wards either left the school or completed their studies in the said school subsequ...
Jhantu Barman Vs. State of West Bengal and Another
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 26.04.2010 and 28.04.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mathabhanga, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2009 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 2(5) of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The factual aspects of the case, in short, is stated below: On 20.07.2006, Sukumar Barman lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga, alleging therein that on 30.06.2006, Jhantu Barman, (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), came to his house and told that his family members had gone to the house of his near relatives and that he needed help in the matter of cooking food, and, as such, he proposed his wife to send Suniti Barman, the daughter of the de facto complainant...
Sourav Ghosh and Others Vs. the State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. IV, Krishnagore, Nadia in Sessions Trial case no. V(II) 2008 arising out of S.C. 25(9) 2008, thereby convicting the appellants Sourav Ghosh and Ranjit Ghosh for committing offences under Sections 324/34 and Sections 427/34 of the Indian Penal code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and1 year, respectively, with fine. 2. This judgement has been challenged on the following grounds: a) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in his true and proper perspective; b) that the learned Court failed to take into note that no injury on the chest of the injured Pritish Chandra was detected by the Doctor on medical examination; c) that the learned Court was oblivious of the fact that the incident was reported by the patient Pritish Chandra to the Doctor as road accident case; d...
Bratindranath Mukherjee Vs. Cans and Closures Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
Prasenjit Mandal, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 12, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Sealdah in Title Appeal No.30 of 2006 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated January 25, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.1 of 1991. The plaintiff / appellant herein being the sole trustee to the Trust Estate of R.N. Mukherjee is the landlord in respect of the premises in suit as described in the schedule to the plaint and the defendant / respondent was the tenant in respect of the said premises in suit at a rental of Rs.9,035/- as per English Calendar Month. The plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment, recovery of khas possession, mesne profits, damages and other reliefs against the defendant contending, inter alia, that the defendant / respondent sublet the premises in suit to other companies. They made additions and alterations of the premises in suit with...
Mrs. Veena Lohia Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-2012
The petitioner, claiming herself as the nominee of the life member of the Managing Committee of the Sri Balkrishna Vithalnath Vidyalaya, filed the instant writ petition challenging the legality of the notice dated 22nd June, 2012 issued by the Teacher‐in‐Charge of the said school for convening a meeting on 29th June, 2012 at 4 P.M. for holding election of office bearers of the Managing Committee of the said school. The said writ petition was initially moved on 29th June, 2012 when this Court passed an interim order by directing that the meeting which was scheduled to be held on 29th June, 2012 may be held, but the outcome of the said meeting will not be given effect to till 4th July, 2012. The said interim order was extended from time to time and the same is still continuing. It was contended by the petitioner that out of six elected guardian members five members have lost their membership as their wards either left the school or completed their studies in the said school s...
Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) Private Limited Vs. the Registrar of Compa ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
I.P. Mukerji, J. Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 is involved in this case. It provides that if the Registrar of Companies has reasonable cause to believe that a company is not carrying on business or the company is not in operation, he can strike off its name from the register. A challenge to that decision lies to the High Court under Section 560 (6) of the Act. This appeal may be preferred by the company or by any member or creditor thereof. The company whose name was struck off by the above process was Basanti Cotton Mills (1998) Pvt. Ltd. This matter stood consideration before me on an earlier occasion. The name of this company had been struck off the register by an order of the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, on 27th January 2006. The applicant had challenged that decision in 2010. The Central Government filed an affidavit in that application to the effect that the procedure under Section 560 of the Act had not been followed by them. On this admission by them, by an ord...
Smt. Bela Ghosh Vs. Swapan Kr. Ganguly and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
Subal Baidya, J. This Civil Revisional application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 22.5.2009 by the petitioner/ defendant is directed against the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 2nd Court, Sealdah in Ejectment Case No. 170 of 2006 whereby the learned Civil Judge allowed the application dated 05.12.2007 filed by the O.P./Plaintiff praying for amendment of the plaint of the said Ejectment case. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.04.2009 the petitioner/defendant has filed the instant revisional application before this Court. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner/ defendant and the learned Advocate for the O.P/Plaintiff. Considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates of the both sides including the materials on record and order impugned. Let this court consider the merit of this revisional application in the facts of the instant case. The Plaintiff/O.P herein filed a suit for eviction on 06.07.20...
Sanjib Singh @ Sanjit Kumar Singh and Another Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
Kanchan Chakraborty, J. These two appeals have been taken up for hearing together as both the appeals are arising out of same judgment and order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 395 of 2008 thereby convicting the appellants along with three others for committing offence under Sections 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine. Sanjib Singh alias Sanjit Kumar Singh alias Indradev Singh has preferred C.R.A. No. 521 of 2010 while Bimal Sarkar has preferred C.R.A. 536 of 2010. Both the appellants have taken similar grounds in their appeal against the judgment. The grounds they have taken are stated below: (a) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective as far as these two appellants are concerned; (b) that the learned Trial Court failed to take into considerati...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »