Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing Indrani Chakraborty vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 September, 2014

Bablu Kar & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 October, 2024

8. Mr. Banerjee, has vehemently urged that interference by a writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted, in view of the alternative remedy available under the criminal law. Reference is made to the decision of Indrani Chakraborty vs State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in (2015) 1 CHN 44. A learned coordinate Bench of this Court had held that, a judicial order could not be assailed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the alternative remedy available under the statute, should be availed of by the aggrieved party. Such submission has been made by Mr. Banerjee, on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistgrate (in- charge), Alipore had remanded the detenues/accused persons to police custody until October 17, 2024. The order 4 being a judicial order, should not be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Sarkar - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad Agarwal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 9 December, 2016

-( 2 )- W.P. No.4381/2016(S) (Indrani Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) decided on 8.9.2014 wherein relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal as reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603 held that when effective statutory remedy under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, is available, a writ of certiorari may not be issued.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Soumitra Lahiri vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 March, 2016

It is settled law that an order passed by a judicial forum cannot be challenged in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance may be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2015 (5) SCC 423 (Radhey Shyam Vs Chhabi Nath) as well as the decision of this Bench reported in 2015 (1) CHN (CAL) 44 (Indrani Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document

M/S. Accent Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 February, 2024

writ petition, the petitioner has in a way challenged the order of the criminal court which is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his contention he relies upon in the decision of Indrani Chakraborty versus State of West Bengal reported in (2014) SCC online Calcutta 17573 [equivalent citation: (2015) 1 CHN page 44]. The present writ petition, is therefore, not maintainable. He seeks time to file affidavit-in-opposition to this writ petition. 2 Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by State-respondents within two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Krishna Traders & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 February, 2024

present writ petition, the petitioner has in a way challenged the order of the criminal court which is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his contention he relies upon in the decision of Indrani Chakraborty versus State of West Bengal reported in (2014) SCC online Calcutta 17573 [equivalent citation: (2015) 1 CHN page 44]. The present writ petition, is therefore, not maintainable. He seeks time to file affidavit-in-opposition to this writ petition. 2 Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by State-respondents within two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sampa Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 February, 2024

petition, the petitioner has in a way challenged the order of the criminal court which is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To buttress her contention she relies upon in the decision of Indrani Chakraborty versus State of West Bengal reported in (2014) SCC online Calcutta 17573 [equivalent citation: (2015) 1 CHN page 44]. The present writ petition, is therefore, not maintainable. She seeks time to file affidavit-in-opposition to this writ petition. 2 Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by State-respondents within two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Promising Exports Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 February, 2024

present writ petition, the petitioner has in a way challenged the order of the criminal court which is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To buttress his contention he relies upon in the decision of Indrani Chakraborty versus State of West Bengal reported in (2014) SCC online Calcutta 17573 [equivalent citation: (2015) 1 CHN page 44]. The present writ petition, is therefore, not maintainable. He seeks time to file affidavit-in-opposition to this writ petition. 2 Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed by State-respondents within two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

@ Hazi Mohammad Towfiqul Haque vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 May, 2024

Firstly, he has pointed out to the non- maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that not on every drop of a hat, Writ Court should interfere to the matter, for which the Criminal Court would have an exclusive jurisdiction. On this point he has relied on a judgment of this Court reported in 2015(1) CHN 44 (Indrani Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) The following paragraph has been relied on:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next