Disposed¶13

Spectrum Petromac Private Limited v. M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. and Others

Calcutta HC9 Jul 2026CRR/1114/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Spectrum Petromac Private Limited v. M/s. Gannon Dunderley & Co. Ltd. & Ors., CRR 1114 of 2026, dated 9.7.2026 — expeditious disposal of criminal case CS/259 of 2024 (JM, 3rd Court, Calcutta); cognizance 21st January 2024; delay in trial; direction to conclude evidence before charge within three months from next date of hearing; ends of justice; opposite party no. 2 also favoured early conclusion of pre-charge evidence.

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the court below to conclude the evidence before charge at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the next date of hearing. ¶13

Spectrum Petromac Private Limited Vs M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. and Others — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

9.7.2026 32 sb

¶2

CRR 1114 of 2026

¶3

Spectrum Petromac Private Limited Vs.

¶4

M/s. Gannon Dunderley & Co. Ltd. & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Avijit Ghoshal …for the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Shubhojyoti Dutta Mr. Koushik Choudhury Ms. Anusuya Basu Dutta Mr. Sayan Dan Mr. Victor Chakraborty …for the O.P. no. 2

¶7

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. Opposite party no. 2 is represented.

¶8

In this application, the petitioner is aggrieved with the inordinate delay in culmination of the proceeding being case no. CS/259 of 2024, presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3^rd Court, Calcutta.

¶9

Being aggrieved by the inordinate delay caused in disposal of the said criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant initiated the said proceeding in the month of January, 2024. He further submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3^rd Court, Calcutta had taken cognizance upon the offences on 21^st January, 2024. Since then, the evidence before charge has not yet been completed and as such, he prayed for necessary direction upon the court below for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid criminal proceeding.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the delay caused in disposal of the said proceeding, is due to complainant’s absence before the Trial court, when the matter was fixed for hearing, still they are also in favour of conclusion of taking evidence before charge at the earliest.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, it appears that the prayer made by the petitioner is justified and required to be allowed to secure the ends of justice.

¶13

In view of above, the instant application being CRR 1114 of 2026 is hereby disposed of with a direction upon the court below to conclude the evidence before charge at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the next date of hearing.

¶14

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶15

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Spectrum Petromac Private Limited v. M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Spectrum Petromac Private Limited v. M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alla Rakha Sk Vs State of West Bengal

Subhajit Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Piyush Chatterjee Vs Abhijit Chowdhury @ Abhijit Chaudhury

Tanima Ray Vs Deborshi Ray

Rinku Paul @ Rinku De Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Savita Liladhar Vaswani Vs Ketan Dungarsi Nagrecha and Others