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.
Smt. Dalia MitrA. Vs. Smt. Gita Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the order dated January 3, 2011 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2010 arising out of the Misc. Case No.128 of 2009. 2. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the respondents/opposite parties herein filed an application for execution of a decree for ejectment being Ejectment Execution Case No.113 of 2002. In that execution proceeding, the petitioner appeared and filed an application under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that the decree passed in the Ejectment Suit No.297 of 1981 by the learned Judge, Eleventh Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta is illegal, void, inoperative and not binding upon the petitioner on the ground that the said decree had been obtained by practising fraud upon the Court. That application was converted into the Misc. Case No.128 of 2009. It was c...
Smt. Pramila Upadhya and ors. Vs. M/S. Electronics IndiA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-22-2011
1. The petitioners, defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction (T.S. No. 349 of 2005), had filed their written statement beyond the time limit stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code). A plea was set up before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Sealdah, who is in seisin of the suit, that the written statement could not be prepared for want of documents, which the plaintiff sought to rely on to establish his claim in the plaint. The learned Judge was of the view that prior to September 8, 2009, the defendants did not make any prayer for direction on the plaintiff to file documents required for preparation of the written statement. The delay of 46 (forty-six) months in filing the written statement that had occurred in the meanwhile was so long that it could not be condoned. Accordingly, rejection of the prayer of the defendants/petitioners for acceptance of the written statement followed. 2. In this application und...
Swapan Kumar PatrA. Vs. Hirak Nath Sount and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and order dated February 20, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fourth Court, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Appeal No.98 of 2008 thereby settting aside the order dated July 31, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No.92 of 2006. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit properties, as described in the schedule of the plaint against the opposite parties. The opposite parties herein have entered appearance in the suit and they are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. The defendants have contended that the suit is not maintainable. Accordingly, by an order dated July 31, 2008, he has held that the suit is maintainable. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. 3. Appeal No.98 of...
Swapan Kumar PatrA. Vs. Hirak Nath Sount and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-21-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.30 dated December 8, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Medinipur in Title Suit No.92 of 2006 thereby rejecting an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. seeking for police help. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted a suit being the Title Suit No.92 of 2006 against the opposite parties for declaration and injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Medinipur. In that suit, the defendants are contesting by filing a written statement. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction and he moved for ad interim order. That prayer for ad interim order restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit properties had been granted. Thereafter, the application for ...
Kishwar Jahan and Another. Vs. the State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. This is an application challenging the order dated 31st October, 2008 whereby sanction for prosecution has been granted in respect of the respondent no.4, 5 and 6. 2. The case of the petitioner is that upon completion of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) a final report was submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis thereof proceedings were initiated in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate and on 22nd Setember, 2008, the Magistrate passed an order that no sanction was required. Inspite thereof by order dated 31st October, 2008 sanction has been granted under Section 120B of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In order to protect the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 no sanction has been granted under Section 306 of the IPC. In fact no sanction was needed as the acts of the private respondents is not in the course of their respective duty. There is no reason for non-inclusion of Sect...
Rabi Waden Bhagat Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 7 th December, 2007 passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal in O.A. No. 989 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the said learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that the subject land being comprised within mill/factory vested in the State subject to the provisions of Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and subsequently the purpose for holding subject land by the intermediary having been frustrated, the State Government by reason of the proviso to Section 6(3) and Section 6(1)(g) of the said West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 is competent to resume the said subject land. 2. The learned Tribunal, therefore, did not find any reason to interfere with the order of resumption passed by the State Government and dismissed the application on merits. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are briefly summarized hereinafter. 3. The property in question was initially lea...
Sri Sri Gopi Nath Jew and anr. Vs. M/S. Samanway Finance and Investmen ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff nos.1 and 3(b) and is directed against the order no.93 dated April 23, 2009 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Twelfth Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.982 of 1997 thereby accepting the written statement filed by the defendant no.1 upon payment of costs. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs of the said suit instituted a suit being Title Suit No.982 of 1997 for a decree of cancellation of four sale deeds dated October 12, 1991 executed by the defendant no.2 in favour of the defendant no.1 company in respect of four properties mentioned therein. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the said property. During pendency of the suit, some sebaits died and their legal heirs cum sebaits have been substituted and the petitioner no.2 herein has been substituted as the plaintiff no.3(b) in the said suit. Summons was served upon the defendant nos.2 to 4 sometime in April/May, 2006. The def...
Ashis Kumar Sarkar and ors. Vs. Satyanarayan Ray and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and order dated February 29, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fifth Court, Burdwan in Misc. Appeal No.17 of 2007 thereby reversing the order no.84 dated May 4, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Burdwan in Title Suit No.263 of 2001. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs instituted a suit being Title Suit No.263 of 2001 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Burdwan against the defendants/opposite parties herein for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint. The defendants/opposite parties entered appearance and they are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement. The plaintiffs filed an application for appointment of a receiver and the defendants filed a written objection against the said application denyi...
Basudeb Paul Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-18-2011
1. The case of the petitioner, in the instant writ application, may be briefly stated as follows : 2. The petitioner applied for the post of Class-IV staff before Bhului S.S.R. Vidyapith (High School). To fill up the post of Class-IV staff, the District Inspector of Schools accorded prior permission and pursuant thereto date of interview was fixed on 6.7.2008. 3. The Secretary of the school issued an interview letter dated 17.06.2008 requesting the petitioner to appear on 6.7.2008 for the post of Group-D staff before the Selection Committee. The said interview could not be held on the date fixed. However, the District Inspector of Schools accorded permission to take fresh re-interview through wide publication in daily newspaper along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Secretary of the Managing Committee by his letter dated 1.12.2008 requested the petitioner to appear in the interview on 20.12.2008, but the said interview could not take place on the said date....
Jayanta Singha at Sinha and anr. Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Boa ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Mar-17-2011
1. The two petitioners in this art.226 petition dated August 7, 2006 are seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay them the Death-cum-Retirement benefits that became payable on the death of one Tarendra Nath Sinha who was working in the West Bengal State Electricity Board as a Sramik. 2. Tarendra died in harness on August 13, 2004. He was a bachelor. On August 20, 1999 he submitted four declarations concerning general provident fund, gratuity, group insurance and family pension using prescribed forms nominating the petitioners to receive the benefits in case of his death and an application for his transfer. All the five things were duly received by the office concerned of the Board on August 20, 1999. 3. On the basis of the application for transfer the competent authority issued an order (at p.45) releasing Tarendra on April 7, 2000 so that he might report to the office to which he was transferred. Submitting a joining report dated April 8, 2000 (A.O. at p.17) Tarendra repor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »