The KMC authorities cannot have double standards before a court of law. A person cannot be sent to jail and an illegal construction is regularised, if it is at all illegal and endangering human life. A court is not an expert to come to a conclusion and express its opinion regarding the nature of construction. The authority who passed the order in its designation incorporates the word “engineer”, the finding of that authority is that there are infractions which are minor. If infractions are minor, then it cannot endanger the human life and the building or the construction can be allowed to retain its form without being demolished.
Category: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS
Sk. Alauddin @ Alai Khan vs Khadiza Bibi @ Mst. Khodeja Khatun-05/12/1990
Whether the learned Magistrate has the jurisdiction to restore the proceeding under Section 125, Cr.P.C. to file once it is dismissed for default.
ALOY KUMAR CHANDA AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS-03/02/2016
The concept of "continuing offence" gets attracted from the date of deprivation of stridhan, for neither the husband nor any other family members can have any right over the stridhan and they remain the custodians... Regard being had to the said concept of ''continuing offence" and the demands made, we are disposed to think that the application was not barred by limitation and the courts below as well as the High Court had fallen into a grave error by dismissing the application being barred by limitation.
CHC stayed bail granted by CBI Court in CBI ACB Kolkata Vs Shri Firhad Hakim @ Bobby Hakim & Ors-17/05/2021
Public trust and confidence in the judicial system is more important, it being the last resort. They may have a feeling that it is not rule of law which prevails but it is a mob which has an upper hand and especially in a case where it is led by the Chief Minister of the State in the office of CBI and by the Law Minister of the State in the Court Complex. If the parties to a litigation believe in Rule of Law such a system is not followed. The idea was different.
Ashok Kumar Todi vs Kishwar Jahan & Ors 18/05/ 2010
CBI - investigation-in this case, the CID erroneously asserted that the complaint before the Karaya Police Station did not disclose any cognizable offence and consequently, proceeded with the preliminary investigation for the 23 days by registering the same as a case of unnatural death. Such conduct of the CID is also one among others indicated above to conclude that there was genuine apprehension in the mind of the writ-petitioners that proper investigation will not be done by the CID to protect some influential persons.
Association for Protection of Democratic Rights vs. State of West Bengal & Ors-16/11/2007
In Civil Writ Petition No. 8596(W) of 2007, the prayer of the petitioners is to pay adequate compensation to the victims of police firing on 14th of March, 2007, in view of the acts of omission and commission on the part of the State Government and its officers and its failure to protect the people of Nandigram and its surrounding areas. The petitioners have claimed compensation at the rate not less than Rs. 10 (ten) lakhs to the families of each of those who were killed. No figure has been mentioned with regard to the injured persons. However, a prayer has been made for payment of compensation, which shall not be less than Rs. 8 (eight) lakhs in case of rape victims and adequate compensation in other cases of molestation and sexual assault.
Sri Chhatradhar Mahato & Others vs The State Of West Bengal-14/08/2019
It is true that a flea-bite sentence should not be awarded for a serious offence. At the same time, one has to take into consideration diverse factors in awarding a sentence. Not only is the gravity of the crime to be considered, the other factors like the range of sentence imposable and the minimum sentence fixed, if any, are also to be taken into account. The aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances are to be carefully weighed. For instance, in the present case, the aggravating factors are the seriousness of the crimes and the recovery of relatively sophisticated items like gelatin sticks and detonators. On the other hand, the mitigating factors are the acquittal of the accused under Section 307 of the Penal Code and the non-seizure of any huge cache' of arms or more sophisticated and lethal weapons like rocket launchers or RDX. Keeping all these factors in mind, an adequate sentence is to be imposed in this case.
Anamika Dutta (Das) Vs. Sri Sandip Das-19/11/2018
If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides.
Unknown vs The State Of West Bengal – 26/11/2014
the Supreme Court has observed that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence. It can be used to contradict or corroborate a witness who has made the statement.
Rupendra Deb Raikut vs Ashrumati Debi And Ors – 25/04/1949
What, then, is the meaning of the expression 'in the interests of justice'? It must mean, I think, to promote or advance the cause of justice. Justice is a principle which regulates the distribution of things, valued by men awarding them to some, denying them to others. It is, at the same time, a principle whereby each man's worth is appraised. Justice gives to "every one that which is his." It is not a free gift from the Court. The subject of a civilised country is entitled as a matter of right to get it "freely without sale, fully without any denial and speedily without delay."
Aisa Siddika And Ors. vs Bidhu Sekhar Banerjee And Ors-24/04/1912
Plaintiffs cannot be compelled to ask for consequential relief in the shape of an injunction The plaintiffs are not parties to the decree obtained by the mortgagee defendant against their husbands; they are in no way bound by that decree. Their case is that the second and third defendants were not competent to execute a…
Read More Aisa Siddika And Ors. vs Bidhu Sekhar Banerjee And Ors-24/04/1912
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.
Advocatetanmoy Law Library 