Kolkata Appellate Court January 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rakhi Mukherjee (Nee Banerjee). Vs. Subhankar Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the wife/petitioner herein and is directed against the order no.33 dated November 3, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Burdwan in Matrimonial Suit No.37 of 2007 thereby allowing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a matrimonial suit being Mat. Suit No.2525 of 2006 against the petitioner herein under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Honble Supreme Court praying, inter alia, for transfer of the said suit from the Family Court at Chennai to the Court of District Judge, Burdwan. That application was allowed resulting in transfer of the said suit from the Family Court at Chennai to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court,...
Suresh Halder. Vs. Smt. Hasi Rani Deb.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated August 12, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.115 of 1997 thereby rejecting an application for repair of the premises in suit.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being T. S. No.115 of 1997 against the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance in the said suit and he is contesting the same by filing a written statement denying all the materials allegations. He filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for repairing the premises in suit stating, inter alia, that the property is in damaged condition and the plaintiff has also admitted that the property is in damaged condition and so he has prayed for repair of the same at his own cost. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.3. Now...
Jagat Taran Chakraborty. Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. The appellant herein Jagat Taran Chakraborty, husband of the deceased of 92, Tollyguange Road, Kolkata -33 was tried by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (south) in Sessions Trial No. 2 (11) of 2000 for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 22.04.02, the appellant/accused was convicted for the said offence. He was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands only) i/d to suffer further R.I. for six months as per order dated 23.04.02. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, the appellant preferred the present appeal.Facts2. Rina Chakraborty, an educated young house wife, aged 25 years succumbed to her burn injuries at M.R. Bangur Hospital at 11 PM on 31.12.99 leaving behind her daughter Romita @ Mumpi, aged about 2 years. She was married to the appellant on 21.04.95. It was a love marriage. In November 1998 a maintenance case...
Basantika Memorial Education Society and anr. Vs. the Chief General Ma ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-14-2011
1. The first petitioner is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. It opened more than one account with the State Bank of India. Persons authorised by its previous governing body were operating the accounts. 2. After formation of new governing body on August 1, 2010 such body submitted annual and other returns to the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal on August 24, 2010. Persons authorised by it requested the bank to permit them to operate all the accounts of the society. The bank refused to permit them to operate as many as seven accounts. 3. In response to repeated request letters of the society the bank wrote a letter dated October 27, 2010 advising the President of the new governing body of the society as follows: 1) Two of the previous signatories have disputed substitution of the new signatories. The documents produced by them bear enough evidence for dispute and requires to be examined by our law departmen...
Managing Director, Xenitis Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar Chakrabor ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the order dated November 24, 2008 passed by the Honble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S. C. Case No.24/FA/08. The opposite party no.1 purchased a laptop at a cost of Rs.38,600/- for personal use from the opposite party no.2. But, that laptop started malfunctioning and all the major components thereof, namely, mother board, power section, battery, hinghe, etc. showed major defects within the period of warranty. For that reason, the complainant / opposite party no.1 had to deposit the said laptop with the opposite party no.2 four times within one year and on each occasion the repairing took about a month or more. Thus, the complainant / opposite party no.1 was able to use the said laptop for about 8 months within the warranty period. So, the complainant lodged a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan being DF Case No.15 of 2007. That complaint case...
Associated Rubber Works and anr. Vs. Cesc Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated August 25, 2010 are seeking the following principal relief: a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued by directing the Respondents being Respondent Nos 2 and 3 to restore supply upon compliance of all formalities as per representation of the petitioner dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure P3). 2. Alleging unauthorised use of electricity, supply of electricity was disconnected on July 12, 2004. The assessing officer of CESC made an order of provisional assessment dated July 12, 2004 under s.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 3. The supply was disconnected once again on February 8, 2006 when an inspecting team detected that the consumer illegally reconnected the supply that had been disconnected on July 12, 2004. The assessing officer made an order of provisional assessment dated February 8, 2006, and then after hearing the authorised representative of the consumer on February 10, 2006 he made an order of final assessment dated February 20, 200...
Smt. Barnali Das (Nee Sinha Roy) Vs. Santosh Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the wife/respondent and is directed against the order no.86 dated August 30, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tenth Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.79 of 2009 thereby allowing an application for enhancement of alimony in part. The husband/opposite party instituted the said matrimonial suit for divorce and the wife/petitioner herein is contesting the said matrimonial suit. The wife also filed a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being M.R. Case No.451 of 1992 and as per order of the learned Magistrate, the husband/opposite party herein has been paying maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. In 2000, the wife was granted alimony at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, the wife filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that the income of her husband had been increased from 6,000/- per month to Rs.20,00/...
Amaresh Chandra BerA. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-13-2011
1. Initially, the appellant had opted on 26th June, 1990 for Contributory Provident Fund under the DCRB scheme. Subsequently, he revised such option on 16th January, 1992 and opted for the Government Provident Fund. This would be evident from the document available at page 28 of the paper book which is a communication by the Teacher-in-Charge addressed to the concerned District Inspector of School.2. Since the position has fallen foul before the Authorities, he was posed to the fore of the Writ Court at the first instance. This saw an order passed by an Honble Single Judge on 22nd February, 2007 in connection with W.P. 11396 (W) of 1999 whereby the Honble Single Judge referred the entire issue for decision before the Secretary, Education Department. It would be pertinent to note that there was a finding by the Honble Single Judge in paragraph 4 of His Lordships order which reads as under:-But it appears from annexure p-2, page-14 to the supplementary affidavit to the writ application t...
Pradip Bandyopadhyay. Vs. Nityananda Bandyopadhyay.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.31 dated August 18, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Ranaghat in Title Suit No.20 of 2000 thereby rejecting an application for local inspection filed by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted the said title suit no.20 of 2000 for declaration and injunction. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations contained in the plaint. The suit was at the stage of hearing argument after close of evidence on behalf of both the sides. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application for holding local inspection on the points as mentioned in the application appearing as annexure A to the application. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be susta...
Asha Devi Rai and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-12-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated January 4, 2011 are questioning the things stated in a letter (at p.57) of the Sr. Divl. Comml. Manager/ HWH of the Eastern Railway dated November 23, 2010. 2. The relevant parts of the letter are quoted below: Your letter dated 01.09.10 has been examined at this end. This is to inform you that the catering unit at Memari station manned by M/S Pudina Rai & Sons has been closed vide this office letter no. COM/V-6/63/MYM dtd. 04.01.2008. You are free to participate in the process for fresh allotment, as and when the necessary notification for catering unit at Memari Station is issued. 3. The father-in-law of the first petitioner and grand father of the second and third petitioners was appointed as a vending contractor at Memari railway station of the Eastern Railway in 1963 for selling Tea Biscuits, Pan, Biri, Cigarettes, Matches, Muri and Chura. After his death the second petitioner was running the business on the basis of the vending ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »