Kolkata Appellate Court March 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.
Nadu Mitra and ors. Vs. Biswanath Datta and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. These two revisional applications are taken up together since they arose out of the same title appeal. For convenience, I am discussing the fact of the C.O. No.136 of 2006. 2. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.44 dated November 16, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Chandannagore in Title Appeal No.246 of 1998 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint. 3. The plaintiffs instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.149 of 1995 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendants/opposite parties herein before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandannagore. The defendant nos.1 to 5 /opposite party nos.1 to 5 herein entered appearance and contested the said suit by filing a written statement. Upon taking evidence on behalf of both the parties, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on contest by a judgment and decree dated August 26, ...
Abdur Rahaman. Vs. State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the referring claimant and is directed against the order no.86 dated June 21, 2007 passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, First Court, Alipore in L.R.A. Case No.159 of 1979 (v) thereby rejecting an application dated December 12, 2005. 2. The short fact is that certain plots of the referring claimant were acquisitioned by the Stated Government and compensation was awarded. Subsequently, by filing an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. the referring claimant claimed enhancement of the compensation and that prayer was rejected. 3. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order could be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that on the basis of the notification dated February 6, 1973 the possession of the lands in question of the referring claimant was taken by t...
Anil Kumar Das and ors. Vs. Shyamapada Ghara and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.99 dated April 17, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Third Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No.164 of 1996 thereby rejecting an application dated March 6, 2007 filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.164 of 1996 for declaration, framing of a scheme, injunction and other reliefs against the defendants/opposite parties herein before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tamluk. The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a joint written statement. Thereafter, issues were framed and the parties were to adduce evidence. While the P.W.2 was being examined-in-chief on January 8, 2006, a sebait Niyogpartra dated October 3, 1971 was shown to him asking the question whether the said Niyogpatra bears his signature or not was put to the witness. The recording was to this effect this is my signature on th...
Sri Sujit Mukherjee. Vs. Smt. Bela Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. The petitioner and the opposite parties entered into an agreement dated December 11, 1996 (hereafter the said agreement), written on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.20/-, in respect of sale of a property at a price of Rs.23,00,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakh) only. Alleging that the opposite parties had failed to honour the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No.3277 of 2009 for specific performance of contract and injunction. The petitioner prayed for a decree for specific performance of the said agreement along with its amendment made in June, 2007 and also for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from selling/transferring the suit property to any third party. Trial of the suit has commenced and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore is in seisin thereof. 2. The petitioner in course of his examination tendered the said agreement in evidence. The trial Judge having found that the agreement had not been ...
Rev. Dipankar De Vs. Banarasi Prasad Gupta and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-29-2011
1. A deed of lease was executed on September 30, 1994, valid for 99 years, in pursuance whereof the opposite party no.1 was granted lease in respect of a property, measuring more or less 1744 sq. ft., at No.16, Beniapukur Road, Kolkata-700014. It is not in dispute that in due course of time, the leasehold property has been remembered 16/1, Beniapukur Road, Kolkata-700014. 2. Title Suit No.318/2006 was instituted by the opposite party no.1 (hereafter the plaintiff) against several defendants, including the petitioner herein, before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Sealdah praying for declaration and injunction. The plaint refers to A, B and C schedule properties. Declaration was sought for to the effect that A and B schedule properties have been granted on lease to the plaintiff and the defendants have no authority to disturb the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof in any manner whatsoever. Based on the allegation in the plaint that the defendants...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Puspa Barui and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the insurer and is directed against the order dated September 24, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.C. Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, First Court, Alipore in M.A.C.C. No.173 of 2001. 2. The short fact is that the opposite parties filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation on the death of Raghab Barui, predecessor-in-interest of the claimants. The petitioner entered appearance in the said proceeding and it is contesting the same by filing a written statement denying all the material averments made in the application. The tribunal recorded evidence and an award of Rs.3,32,800/- was granted to the opposite parties payable by the insurer within 30 days from the date of order dated August 18, 2003. Thereafter, the insurer filed an application under Section 151, 152 and 153 of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that Raghab Barui (since deceased) was not at all an employee of M/s. ...
Prativa Bandhapadhyay. Vs. Chhanda Bhattacharjee.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. Challenge is to the order dated July 22, 2009 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.247 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being the Ejectment Suit No.247 of 2008 against the petitioner on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. The petitioner is contesting the said suit. She filed an application under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. That application is pending for disposal. In the meantime, she filed an application under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for stay of the suit stating, inter alia, that on the selfsame suit premises another suit being Title Suit No.704 of 2002 is pending. The matter involved in the said suit and that of the present suit are identical. So, the present suit being a later suit should be stayed. That application was rejected by the impugned order. 3. Being aggriev...
Chand Mohan Sammader. Vs. the State of West Bengal.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 1. This Criminal Appeal bearing CRA No. 551 of 2005 has been directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated June, 9 2005, and sentence dated June 10,2005 passed by Sri Sukhendu Das, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Krishnanagar, Nadia, in Sessions Trial NO. XVII (4) 2005 arising out of Sessions Case No. 48(2) 2005 convicting the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the convict to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 600/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, while the said sentences as passed shall run concurrently and fine, if realised be paid to the victim S...
Krishna Bahadur Chhetry and ors. Vs. Siliguri Municipality and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.97 dated July 31, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalpaiguri in Misc. Case No.16 of 2001 arising out of the O.C. Suit No.97 of 1996. 2. The short fact is that plaintiffs instituted a suit being O.C. Suit No.97 of 1996 for declaration, cancellation of a sale deed, injunction and other reliefs. In that suit, notices were issued upon the opposite parties but they did not contest the said suit. As a result, the suit was decreed ex parte on December 5, 2000. Thereafter, on October 5, 2001, the defendant nos.1 to 3 filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1965 for condonation of delay and the said application for setting aside the ex parte decree was converted into a Misc. Case No.16 of 2001. That misc. case was dismissed for non-appearance of the defendants. Thereafter, the defendant nos.1 t...
Barendra Nath Maity and ors. Vs. Khagendra Nath Maity and anr
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-28-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated September 16, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Appeal No.18 of 2010 arising out of an order dated February 22, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Paschim Medinipur in Judicial Case No.18 of 2009 arising our of Title Suit No.126 of 2009. 2. The plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.126 of 2009 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Paschim Medinipur for a decree for partition in respect of their 22 decimals of land within the suit property against the defendants/opposite parties herein. The petitioners are contesting the said partition suit and they have filed a written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction. That ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »