Category: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS

Tridandeeswami Bhakti Kusum  vs Mayapore Sree Chaitanya Math And Ors-22/04/1983

The first question that requires consideration is whether the suit is one for land or simply for the cancellation of the impugned deeds. The question has to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and the reliefs claimed therein. We have already referred to some of the averments and set out the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that although, prima facie, it may appear to be a suit for land, really it is a suit for the cancellation of impugned deeds of appointment.

Emperor vs Khudiram Bose-13/06/1908

The accused is not a mere youth but a young man who has attained the age fixed for majority in this country. The crime was not committed at the instigation of older men present on the spot. For twenty days the accused and his companion had been in Mozufferpore watching for an opportunity to commit the crime, and when they thought the opportunity offered itself they carried it out with deliberation and determination after first taking precautions to avoid detection and secure escape. It is impossible to treat the accused as a young man who did not know fully well the serious nature of the crime he was committing.

Whether a lawyer using domestic space as his chamber is liable to pay electricity bill on commercial basis- CHC Says No

Arup Sarkar vs C.E.S.C-the space in the ground floor has been taken by the petitioner as an extension of his residence for the use of the space as his legal chamber. The above factual matrix is clearly distinguishable from law firms and proprietorship firms that are having offices in commercial spaces dealing with litigation and non-litigation work. The chambers of a litigation lawyer are clearly used for his livelihood, and accordingly, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to such a petitioner placing him in the category of the “Domestic (Urban)”.

Chhatradhar Mahato & Ors vs State Of West Bengal-CHC-06/05/2016

The question for consideration of the Court is whether the petitioners can enjoy the rights and privileges as political prisoners after their conviction and sentence by the Trial Court, which has specifically observed that the petitioners are members of frontal organisation of Communist Party of India (Marxist and Leninist) which is notified as terrorist organisation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Sati Kanta Guha And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal-25/07/1977

For the purpose of framing charge, therefore, the Judge is to consider judicially whether on consideration of the materials on record, it can be said that the accused las been reasonably connected with the offence alleged to have been committed and that on the basis of the said materials there is a reasonable probability or chance, as we normally call it, of the accused being found guilty of the offence alleged.

DOMINION OF INDIA VS ASHUTOSH DAS- 4/11/1949

The appointment of a Receiver in execution proceedings has been described as a form of equitable relief which is granted on the ground that there is no effective remedy by execution at law. Surely it is an improper use of that equiable remedy to employ it to avoid a very definite bar created by statute law to achieving the very object for which the Receiver is appointed.

Kali Shankar Ganguly vs Lalit Kumar Agarwala & Ors-20/04/2017

Therefore, in view of the result of the examination of the entire materials on record since the L.C.R. is made available before this Court, it is held that in the decision making process both the courts respectively in Misc. Appeal and Misc. Case did not commit any jurisdictional error, illegality or perversity in declining the right of pre-emption sought for by the petitioner on the ground of adjoining land owner, and in such loosely conducted game the petitioner cannot expect any success, when the law in the field demands its requirements in some other way, which are absent with the petitioner.

Amarendra Nath Chakraborty vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17/03/1969

(a) that the assessee was a preacher of the Satsang cult; (b) the gift of land may have been made to the assessee voluntarily but it was made in consideration of certain spiritual benefits that the donor had received from the assessee in his capacity as a preacher of the Satsang cult. From these points of view it cannot be urged, in our opinion, that the value of the land was not the assessee’s income.

Satsang And Anr. vs Kiron Chandra Mukhopadhyay And Ors-18/07/2020

Copy right Act-Under the Copyright Act 1957 registration is not compulsory. There is no section in the Copyright Act 1957, to the effect that the author can have no right or remedy un-less the work is registered. Section 13 of the Copyright Act provides that copy-right shall subsist throughout India in certain classes of works which are enumerated in the section. Section 45 of the Act provides that the author or publisher of, or the owner of or other person interested in the copyright in any work may make an application in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee to the Registrar of Copyrights for entering particulars of the work in the Register of Copyrights. This section does not say that registration is compulsory.

Calcutta High Court ordered for verifiable independent expert opinion on Police Investigation Report-15/11/2019

Jyotsna Roy -VS- State of West Bengal & Ors.-Considering the nature of duties and in the jurisdiction exercised by the deceased and considering the death of the deceased at the age of 52 years while in service, such an event cannot be taken lightly, irrespective of whether a writ petition had been filed or not. The writ petition has only added substance to the requirement of an in-depth investigation. The Court is therefore in requirement of a verifiable independent expert
opinion on the results of the investigation collected so far.

Subhra Mukherjee vs M/S. Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd-10/01/2014[CHC]

Although, it was open for the Court to exercise its power under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of absence of specic denial to the pleadings of the plaintiff and to take the facts stated in the plaintiff as admitted the Court in its discretion required certain facts to be proved in this proceeding otherwise than by such admission in its anxiety to ensure that merely by absence in finding and/or decision arrived at by this Court may not cause any prejudice to the non- appearing and non-contesting defendants.