Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 7 th December, 2007 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 989 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that the subject land being comprised within mill/factory vested in the State subject to the provisions of Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and subsequently the purpose for holding subject land by the intermediary having been frustrated, the State Government by reason of the proviso to Section 6(3) and Section 6(1)(g) of the said West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 is competent to resume the said subject land. 2. The learned Tribunal, therefore, did not find any reason to interfere with the order of resumption passed by the State Government and dismissed the application on merits. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are briefly summarized hereinafter. 3. The property in question was initially lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 22.04.2002 passed by learned Judge Sixth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Appeal No.46 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the judgment and decree of Ejectment dated 28.02.2001 passed by learned Judge Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.39 of 2000 was set aside. 2. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned Lower Appellate Court this Second Appeal has been preferred. 3. The present appellant /plaintiff filed said suit alleging that he purchased the suit house including the suit property by a registered deed of conveyance dated 23 rd February, 1996 and that one Kanailal Roja, husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2, was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and that after his death both the defendants became tenants in respect of the suit premises. The defendants defaulted in payment of rent, caused nuisance and annoyance and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The two petitioners in this art.226 petition dated August 7, 2006 are seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay them the Death-cum-Retirement benefits that became payable on the death of one Tarendra Nath Sinha who was working in the West Bengal State Electricity Board as a Sramik. 2. Tarendra died in harness on August 13, 2004. He was a bachelor. On August 20, 1999 he submitted four declarations concerning general provident fund, gratuity, group insurance and family pension using prescribed forms nominating the petitioners to receive the benefits in case of his death and an application for his transfer. All the five things were duly received by the office concerned of the Board on August 20, 1999. 3. On the basis of the application for transfer the competent authority issued an order (at p.45) releasing Tarendra on April 7, 2000 so that he might report to the office to which he was transferred. Submitting a joining report dated April 8, 2000 (A.O. at p.17) Tarendra repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The appellant was tried on a charge of having committed offences of kidnapping and murder of Fatik @ Abhishek Mondal along with two others and causing disappearance of his body by concealing it in a pond. By judgment and order dated 19.05.09, 20.05.09 and 21.05.09 the appellant-accused has been found guilty u/s 364 of the I.P.C. read with section 120B I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant-accused is also found guilty u/s 302 of the I.P.C. read with section 120B I.P.C. and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, u/s 201 of the I.P.C. read with section 120B of the I.P.C. has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Accordingly, the Ld. Trial Court has made a reference u/s 366(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia, sentencing each of the appellants, namely, Joynal Abedin Shaikh, Anwar Shaikh @ Anarul Shaikh, Jan Mahammad Shaikh, Asraf Shaikh and Hafiz Shaikh to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- i.d to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are also sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each i.d to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year under Section 148 IPC. 2. Prosecution case in short may be depicted as follows: 3. On 9th September, 1994 at about 12.35 p.m. one Samsul Shaikh (P.W.1) lodged an FIR with Karimpur Police Station to this effect that on the aforesaid date at about 10 a.m. his elder brother Sirajuddin Shaikh, deceased, High School teacher and his younger brother Giyasuddin Shaikh, a student of Class X, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 1. This revisional application under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner praying for an order and direction for disposal of G.R. Case No. 297 of 1991 under Sections 147/447/323/ 379 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Contai, as expeditiously as possible, that is within a period of six months from the date of order.2. It is the case of the petitioners that a complaint was lodged by the complainant, namely, Shambhunath Jana on 11th April, 2009, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Midnapore, alleging thereby that the petitioners/accused persons and some others forcibly entered into the land of the father of the complainant on 4th March, 1990, and cut down 17 Bamboos, and on 3rd April, 1991, the petitioners/accused persons forcibly went to the land of the father of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is directed against the order no.56 dated February 15, 1991 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Second Bench, Calcutta in Misc. case No.993 of 1990 arising out of the Title Execution Case No.120 of 1982. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the petitioners/decree holders obtained a decree for recovery of possession against the 8 defendants in respect of the suit properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of the title suit being Title Suit No.626 of 1979. That decree was put into execution by filing the execution application being Title Execution Case No.120 of 1982. The opposite party filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter alia, that his father, Narayan Lal Gupta, died 10 years back before the institution of the suit and so the decree obtained against the 8 defendants including Narayan Lal Gupta is a nullity and the same is not executable. By the impugned o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants / judgment debtors and is directed against the order no.15 dated July 27, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Bolpur in Misc. Case No.22 of 2009 arising out of Title Execution Case No.2 of 2007 arising out of Title Suit No.75 of 2000.2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of the application is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.75 of 2000 against the petitioners for declaration of right, title and interest in the Kha schedule property and also for recovery of khas possession of the Kha schedule property and for other reliefs. While the opposite party put the decree obtained in the said suit for execution, the petitioners filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending, inter alia, that the report submitted by the learned commissioner appointed in the suit does not tally with the suit property and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the orders dated February 14, 2008 and March 13, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia in Title Suit No.235 of 1993 thereby granting the prayer for analogous hearing of this suit along with the other suit being Title Suit No.3 of 1994.2. The short fact is that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.235 of 1993 on October 7, 1993 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the opposite party in respect of 13 decimals of land out of 52 decimals of land in R.S. Plot No.422/510, Khatian No.108/1 within Mouza-Brajanath Chawk under Police Station Haldia. The petitioner has contended that the total 52 decimals of land in the plot in suit originally belonged to one Himangshu Sekhar Maity who transferred the said land by a registered deed dated February 14, 1966 to one Bijay Kr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. This application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the order no.35 dated July 21, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track First Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.6 of 2007 arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.31 of 2007.2. The short fact is that the petitioner and the opposite party were married under the Special Marriage Act in July, 1988. After marriage, the parties lived together and one son was born in the wedlock. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for divorce against the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and she is contesting the said matrimonial suit. She filed an application praying for alimony at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for herself and for her son living with her and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/-. The wife has contended that she has no income of her own while her husband earns more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge granted alimony at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per ...
Tag this Judgment!