Kolkata Appellate Court April 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.
Kuresha Khatun and ors. Vs. MoinuddIn Ansari (Dead) and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants/judgment debtors and is directed against the order no.55 dated July 7, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No.25 of 2002 arising out of the Title Suit No.116 of 2000 thereby rejecting application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being T.S. No.,116 of 2000 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah for eviction against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. In that suit, the opposite party got an ex parte decree. On getting an information by search on June 6, 2002, the petitioners got knowledge of the ex parte decree passed against them. Thereafter, they contacted their advocate and then an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was filed on June 14, 2002.At that time, the mistake was detected by the computer department that the application was barred by limitation. Thereafter, the...
Gopal Chandra Das. Vs. Malighati Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Society for Advance ...
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-06-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order dated May 28, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fourth Court, Paschim Medinipur in Misc. Appeal No.57 of 2007 arising out of Title Suit No.117 of 2007. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiff/opposite party, a society instituted the said suit against the defendant/petitioner praying for a decree of declaration that the notice issued by the defendant on May 25, 2007 is illegal and that the defendant has no right to issue such a notice as he does not hold any office bearer of the society and that the society has every right to run the society smoothly, permanent injunction and other reliefs. 3. At the time of filing of the suit, the society prayed for temporary injunction. A notice was issued upon the opposite party and thereafter by an order dated June 8, 2007, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved by that order, the plaintif...
Sudhangshu Sekhar Maity. Vs. Santi Gopal Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the order no.20 dated March 26, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakdwip in Title Suit No.65 of 2008. 2. The plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.65 of 2008 against the petitioner and the other opposite party nos.3 & 4 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kakdwip for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The petitioner is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations as made in the plaint. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs prayed for temporary injunction. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the tank in suit. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs contended that in spite of that order, the defendants, in violation of the said order of injunction, caught hold of 30 k.gs. of fish fro...
M/S. Sunraj Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. The challenge in this revisional application is to the order dated 28th March, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in case No. C-483/03 whereby the learned Magistrate decided to continue the prosecution against the petitioner, M/s. Sunraj Software Pvt. Ltd., and directed the complainant-opposite party for taking steps in the matter of prosecuting the Director of Createch Solution Ltd., who issued the cheque in question. 2. The opposite party, M/s. Adan Traders Pvt. Ltd., initiated a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), against M/s. Sunraj Software Pvt. Ltd., petitioner herein, alleging that the petitioner company issued a cheque of Rs.7,00,000/- on 21.01.2003 in favour of the opposite party company in discharge of debt/liability, which was dishonoured for Payment stopped by the drawer. A legal demand notice dated 21.4.2003 was sent by the opposite party calling upon the p...
Cooch Behar Kshatriya Society and anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Thakur and ors
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated May 15, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cooch Behar in Title Suit No.9 of 2007thereby rejecting an application under order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The short fact is that the plaintiffs instituted a suit being T.S. No.9 of 2007 against the opposite parties for recovery of possession of the suit proprerties as described in the schedule of the plaint against the defendants/opposite parties herein before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division).The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing an written statement. The issues have been framed. The suit was at the stage peremptory hearing. At this stage, the plaintiffs filed an application for local investigation by appointing an Amin Commissioner contending, inter alia, that the land possessed by the defendants separately should be investigated, so that the appropriate reliefs might be passed...
Aditya MalhotrA. Vs. Namrata MalhotrA.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-05-2011
1. These two applications are directed against the Order No.53 dated January 15, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 8 th Court, Alipore in T.S. No.62 of 2005 thereby disposing of an application for interim maintenance.2. Since the two applications have arisen out of the common order, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, I am taking up the C.O. No.758 of 2007 first. C.O. No.758 of 20073. This application has been preferred by the defendant husband in a suit under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The wife/opposite party herein instituted the suit under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act claiming maintenance for herself and her twin daughters contending, inter alia, that the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rights & rituals in Kolkata. The parties to the marriage resided at Ranchi (Jharkhand). They were blessed with twin daughters ...
Narendra Nath Roy. Vs. Phani Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of a pre-emtee and is directed against the order dated May 30, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Track Court, Alipurduar in Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2006 thereby reversing the order dated November 27, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipurduar in Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004. 2. The opposite party no. 1 herein instituted an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipurduar and the said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004. 3. The opposite no. 1 stated, inter alia, that he has adjacent for land. The petitioner is a stranger purchaser in respect of the land under pre-emption. No notice was issued upon him. He is also a co-sharer in respect of the land transferred to the stranger purchaser i. e. the petitioner. For that reason, he has claimed pre-emption of the land in case. The petitioner resisted ...
Niranjan Bar. Vs. Nirmal Bar and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-04-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order no.42 dated December 15, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2 nd Court, Basirhat in Title Suit No.76 of 2004. 2. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit against the defendants praying for a decree or confirmation of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basirhat. In that suit, the defendant / petitioner herein is contesting by filing a written statement. The issues have been framed. The plaintiffs evidence had been closed and the suit was at the stage of recording evidence on behalf of the defendant. At that state, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint. That application for amendment of the plaint was allowed by the learned Trial Judge holding that the proposed amendment is necessary for the disposal of the suit and that if allowed, it will not change the nature and character ...
Sailesh SahA. Vs. Gouri Bhattacharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the defendant no.7 and is directed against the order dated May 17, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), First Court, Krishnagar in Title Suit No.69 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application filed by the defendant for repair of the tin shed with bamboo posts. 2. The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.69 of 2008 for declaration of title, permanent injunction and also for partition. In that suit, the defendants are contesting. An order of status quo with regard to the suit property has been passed by the learned Trial Judge. Thereafter, the defendant no.7 filed an application for permission to repair the godown in his purchased portion of the land. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties an...
Dipak Kr. Addy. Vs. Amrit Kumar Addy and anr
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Apr-01-2011
1. This application is at the instance of the opposite party no.1 of the misc. case bearing Misc. Case No.1551 of 2005 pending before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Tenth Bench, Calcutta. 2. The petitioner of that misc. case / opposite party herein instituted an application under Section 73 read with Section 74 of the Indian Trusts Act before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta for appointment of himself as trustee of the trust referred to in the said misc. case. 3. In that misc. case, the petitioner herein entered appearance and he is contesting the said misc. case. At the stage of recording evidence, that is, at trial stage, the petitioner of the misc. case prayed for amendment of the plaint and that application for amendment was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 4. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »