Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The moot question involved in this litigation is whether the Court is entitled to allow the parties to settle a dispute resulted in a criminal proceeding in respect of a cognizable offence and, if so, in what circumstance the precedents on the issue differ from case to case, however the majority view is in favour of the proposition.2. Md. Rafique, the petitioner above named was the proprietor of M/s. Euro International. Md. Akram, Md. Koya and Anwar were also part of the said organization. The respondent no.2 V. Jayachandra lodged a complaint with the Police on December 10, 2004 at Karaya Police Station, Kolkata as against them. According to the said complaint, Jayachandra was associated with M/s. Sky Link Tours & Travels, Vellore, Tamil Nadu. Rafique contacted him and introduced himself as proprietor of M/s. Euro International. He had contacts with Government of India to send three hundred persons of different categories of job for Caspine Petroleum Project at Azarbijun and offered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.173 dated July 25, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court at Alipore, District South 24 Parganas in Misc. Case No.4 of 1990 arising out of the Title Suit No.100 of 1984.2. The short fact is that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/petitioners herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.100 of 1984 praying for a decree of declaration of charge, specific performance of contract and damages. In that suit, the defendant entered appearance on February 27, 1985 by filing vakalatnama and he prayed for time to file a written statement by an appropriate application. Ultimately, the defendant did not file any written statement. As a result, the suit was decreed ex parte on November 18, 1985. Long time thereafter in 1990, the defendant/opposite party herein filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. and that application was converted into a misc. cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Challenge is to the order no.33 dated August 19, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District judge, Second Court, Barasat in Matrimonial Suit No.113 of 2008 thereby allowing an application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act granting alimony at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month for the wife and the minor son, subject adjustment of the amount paid in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., effective from the date of filing of the application on November 13, 2006.2. The husband/petitioner herein instituted a suit being Matrimonial Suit No.113 of 2008 before the learned District Judge, North 24 Parganas under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act. The wife/opposite party entered appearance and she is contesting the said suit. During pendency of the suit, she filed an application for alimony on November 13, 2006. That application for alimony was allowed by the impugned order granting alimony at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month for the wife and the son effective from t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The opposite party instituted a suit (Eviction Case No.46 of 2004) in the 1st Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 24 Parganas (South), Alipore for eviction of the petitioners father from the suit property and recovery of khas possession thereof as well as for mesne profit from September 1, 2003.2. It is the plaint case that the father of the petitioner had acquired separate flats in his name where he has been residing and possession of the suit property was parted with in favour of outsiders without obtaining the consent of the opposite party. Notice to quit dated July 14, 2003 was issued. However, possession was not vacated giving rise to the present suit.3. The petitioners father was originally the sole defendant in the suit. On his death on February 26, 2005, the petitioner has been substituted in the suit as defendant on December 7, 2005, his mother having predeceased her husband. The petitioner is contesting the suit.4. Prior to institution of such suit, the opp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The petitioner and the opposite party no.1 are co-plaintiffs in Title Suit No.54 of 2005, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, wherein opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are defendants 1 and 2.2. It is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The co-plaintiffs had been employed under the opposite party no.2 for more than three decades. While in service, they had purchased substantial shares of the opposite party no.2. However, feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the attempt of the opposite party no.2 to compel them to surrender their shares, the suit had been instituted.3. Since the nature of relief claimed in the suit would have a bearing on the outcome of this revisional application, the prayers are set out hereinbelow :a) Declaration that Articles 11 and 14 of the Articles of Association of the defendant No.1 and 2 respectively are illegal, unsustainable and wrongful;b) Declaration that the plaintiffs a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated February 18,2011 is seeking the following principal reliefs: (i) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2 to 4 to disclose how the sale was conducted and who purchased the property, if at all it was sold, and such sale be set aside for violating the statutory provisions; (ii) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.2 to 4 to revalue the secured property by an approved Valuer and act in accordance with the Act of 2002 and Rules framed there under by setting aside the purported sale, if any, made on 31.01.2011; 2. In September 2006 the petitioners husband took Rs.55 lakh business loan from the second respondent (Axis Bank Limited); in December 2006 the gentleman died. He was survived by the petitioner, one minor child and his mother. 3. The authorized officer of the bank issued a notice dated September 24, 2008 under s. 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated February 23, 2011 is questioning the measures taken by the authorised officer of the bank by issuing a possession notice dated February 13, 2011 (at p.35) under s.13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for two reasons the petitioner is entitled to approach the High Court under art.226: (i) the loan agreement executed in 2005 was never supplied by the bank; and (ii) without disposing of the petitioners representation to the s.13(2) notice the authorised officer of the bank has taken measures under s.13(4) of the Act. 3. Relying on Bhavanagar University v. Palitana Surat Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 111 and Krushna Chandra Sahoo v. Bank of India & Ors., AIR 2009 Ori. 35 he has submitted that since non-supply of the loan agreement amounted to an unfair practice and non-disposal of the representatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia sentencing each of the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Judge did not pass any separate sentence for the commission of the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Ananda Sarkar lodged complaint with O.C. Haringhata P.S. alleging that his elder sister Rajeswari Sarkar (Biswas) was married with Bhola Nath Biswas on 5th Falgun, 1397 B.S. One year after marriage her husband and the inmates of his family started committing mental and physical torture upon her. On different occasions due to the intervention of the villagers, his elder sister could manage to live in her matrimonial home for some length of time. But,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. In the instant revisional application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the legality and propriety of the proceeding in case no. C-2481 of 2002 now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta under Sections 56 and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 has been assailed. 2. Heard the learned lawyer for both the parties present. 3. The instant criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner company on the basis of a complaint filed by the opposite party dated 31.05.2002 for committing the alleged offence of international commodity trading transactions amongst various overseas entities without lawful authorities. It is further submitted that payment of one overseas entity to another overseas entity under a contractual understanding between the parties does not amount to acquisition of foreign exchange as alleged in the FIR. Moreover, the complaint has now lost its relevancy since during subsequent stage the departmental proceeding on identical cha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the opposite party/plaintiff/petitioner herein and is directed against the order no.73 dated July 7, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri in Misc. Case No.15 of 2000 arising out of the Title Suit No.26 of 1999 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the misc. case as well as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein got an ex parte decree of declaration of title and injunction against the opposite party. Subsequently, the opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. and another petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff/petitioner is contesting the said application. Evidence was recorded on behalf of both the sides. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing argument over the said misc. case. At that time, the opposite party filed an application for amendment of the said misc. case as well ...
Tag this Judgment!