Category: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS

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.