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.
Srrak-reipl Jv and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated November 20, 2010 are seeking the following principal reliefs: a) Declaration to the effect that the selection process of the successful tender is vitiated by irregularity, favoritism, nepotism and thus is void and/or set aside; b) Declaration to the effect that process for selection of successful tenderer is bad and wholly illegal; c) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue directing the concerned respondents, their men, agents and subordinates to process the tender documents afresh and in accordance with law; d) A writ in the nature of Prohibition do issue restraining the respondents Coal India Authorities and/or their subordinates from taking any action and/or further action pursuant to and in furtherance of letter of intent issued in favour of the alleged successful tenderer being the private respondent herein; 2. Northern Coalfields Limited (in short NCL) of P.O. Singrauli, Dist-Singrauli (MP) put a notice dated April 2...
Shyam Ballav Safui and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-19-2011
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated June 22, 2010 are seeking a mandamus commanding CESC to pay them compensation for acquisition of their lands particulars whereof have been given in the petition, and not to pay any share thereof to the private respondents. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that by acquiring the petitioners lands CESC, using the lands for placing high-tension overhead electric lines, became liable to pay the petitioners compensation. Counsel for CESC submits that he is not in a position to say whether compensation for using the properties has been determined by CESC. He has said that no compensation has been paid to anyone. 3. The lands in question were used (not acquired) by CESC for placing overhead electric lines for transmission of electricity. The provisions of s.164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 empowered CESC, a licensee under the provisions of the Act, to use the property in terms of the provisions of s.10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 4...
Hiralal Ghosh. Vs. Sukumar Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.65 dated January 10, 2006 passed by the Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Second Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.1720 of 2000 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff.2. The short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a title suit being T.S. No.1720 of 2000 before the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta against the opposite parties praying for the following reliefs:-a. a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to remain in possession in respect of the suit premises without any disturbance from the opposite parties and the undated letter issued by the opposite party no.1 is void, illegal and not binding upon the petitionerb. Permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from interference with and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises more particularly as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of the said suit.3. By a deed of c...
Deoki Bazaz Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is taken out by one Deoki Bazaz @ Deoki Nandan Bazaz and Priti Bazaz praying for quashing of the proceedings in G.R. Case no. 179 of 2008 arising out of Raghunathpur P.S. Case no. 37 of 2008 dated 1.5.2008 under Section 498 A/34 I.P.C. , pending in the Court of learned ACJM, Raghunathpur, Purulia.2) Mr. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioners makes two fold contention. The first point raised is that neither Raghunathpur P.S. has jurisdiction to investigate into the case nor the learned ACJM Raghunathpur has jurisdiction to take cognizance over the offence alleged so far as the petitioners are concerned. His second point of contention is that if the face value of the averments made in the FIR is considered, it will be found that there is no prima facie case under Section 498 A I.P.C. against the petitioners. The entire process, according to Mr. Chattopadhyay, is illegal, irregular, beyond jurisdiction and is liable to ...
Smt. Sandhya Rani Pakhira and ors. Vs. Jogananda Alias Jagannath Baner ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Challenge is to the order no.5 dated December 3, 2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Civil Revision Case No.71 of 2003 thereby affirming the order dated February 28, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Seventh Court, Howrah in Title Suit No.128 of 1994. The short fact is that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party instituted a suit for eviction of the petitioners from the premises in suit on the ground of default and reasonable requirement. In that suit, the defendants/petitioners herein entered appearance and they are contesting the said suit. They filed an application under Section 17(2) & (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for determination of arrears of rent, if any and for instalment. That application was disposed of by an order dated July 5, 1999 directing the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent as well as current rent. They did not comply with such directions and for that reason, the opposite party filed an ...
Sanwar Ali and anr. Vs. Anjali Singha and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-18-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated February 7, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.132 of 2007 thereby allowing an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff instituted a title suit being T. S. No.20 of 2002 praying for a decree for declaration of his tenancy right under the defendant no.6, decree of permanent injunction and a decree for mandatory injunction in respect of the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint, against the defendants. The defendant nos.1 & 2 are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for temporary injunction. The prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter a misc. appeal was preferred against the said order and the learned Additional District Judge allowed the misc. appeal directing both the...
Bharat Chamber of Commerce. Vs. Ram Jiban Ram and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the order dated April 21, 2009 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in W.B.S.E. Appeal No.6 of 2005 thereby dismissing the appeal.2. The short fact is that the opposite party herein is an employee under the petitioner and he absented himself from March 9, 1998 to March 20, 2009 without intimation. Since he did not file any application for regularisation of the unauthorised absence and he did not perform any service for the said period, no wage was paid to him for the said period and an amount of Rs.1,206/- was deduced from his salary. Being aggrieved, the opposite party moved the Referee, Shops and Establishments, Government of West Bengal and by an order dated October 24, 2005, the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount to the opposite party. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred the said appeal and the learned lower appellate court dismissed that a...
Archana Das. Vs. Subrata Das
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the wife/respondent and is directed against the order no.47 dated July 28, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fifth Fast Track Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.3 of 2006 arising out of the Matrimonial Suit No.17 of 2006.2. The opposite instituted a suit being matrimonial suit no.230 of 2005 (subsequently renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No.17 of 2006) before the learned District Judge, Alipore for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner herein entered appearance in the said suit and she is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. She also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for alimony pendente lite for herself, her son and also litigation costs. That application for alimony was converted into the misc. case no.3 of 2006 and that was disposed of on July 28, 2009 by passing the impugned order granting alimony at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for the petitioner, Rs.3,000/- per mo...
Tusharmoy DasguptA. Vs. Amarnath Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the applicant and is directed against the order no.12 dated September 13, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fourth Court, Alipore in Ejectment Suit No.333 of 2009.2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit for eviction against the opposite party nos.6 & 7 for eviction in respect of the properties, as described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiffs contende3d that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party nos.6 & 7, namely Jyostshamoy Dasgupta, since deceased, was inducted as a tenant and after his death, the tenancy devolved upon the opposite party nos.6 & 7 being his wife and son. The defendants sub-let the suit property in favour of a third person and the defendants have their own accommodation at premises no.7, Park Side Road. That is why, the suit for eviction was filed. The opposite party nos.6 & 7 are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. The...
Ranajit Ghosh and ors. Vs. Gan Tusi Au and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Jan-17-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant nos.2(a) to 2(e) and is directed against the order no.87 dated May 27, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No.163 of 2001 thereby rejecting an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the defendants.2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being Title Suit No.270 of 1990 against the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners and the opposite party nos.2 & 3 for eviction from the premises in suit, as described in the schedule of the plaint. In that suit, the petitioners appeared and filed an application under Section 17(2) & (2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. While the plaintiff /opposite party was deposing before the Court, a letter was shown to him during cross-examination and she (witness) denied her signature thereon. For that reason, the petitioners filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »