Kolkata Court January 1973 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.
Satya Narayan Maity Vs. Sunirmalendu Maity
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal201
ORDERN.C. Talukdar, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner in this Rule which is directed against an order dated 14-11-72 passed by Shri A. C. Acharyya, Munsif, First Court, Contai in Title Suit No. 88 of 1972, allowing the plaintiff-opposite party's prayer and directing the defendant-petitioner to unlock and make over the documents and materials kept under lock and key, as mentioned in the petition, upon receipt and in presence of the lawyers of both the sides.2. The facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass. A disputearose between the defendant, Shri SatyaNarayan Maity, stated to be the permanent Head Master of the Halud-Bari High School, and the Managing Committee thereof. The Managing Committee by a resolution dated 1-3-72 issued a charge-sheet against the defendant, suspending him and directing him to make over charge to the Secretary. The plaintiff, Shri Sunirmalendu Maity, stated to be the Officiating Head Master, filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 88 of 1972, in ...
Kailash Debi Jaiswal Vs. Patit Paban Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Cal91
ORDERAjay K. Basu, J.1. This is a suit filed by the two plaintiffs Sm. Kailash Debi Jaiswal and Sm. Usha Gupta against the defendant Patit Paban Roy for a decree for recovery of possession of the rooms in occupation of the said defendant Patit Paban Roy of 6, Rajendra Deb Road of which the plaintiffs are the owners, for their own use and occupation, and also for mesne profits and other ancillary reliefs.2. Mr. Pradip Das appears for the plaintiffs and Mr. Banerjee appears for the defendant. The following issues were raised:1. Do the plaintiffs . reasonably require the demised premises for their own use and occupation as alleged in paragraph 3 of the plaint ? 2. Have the plaintiffs or their respective family members no alternative residential accommodation except the demised premises ? 3. Is the notice dated 19th November 1968 legal and valid ? 4. Has this Court jurisdiction to receive, try and determine this suit ? 5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled, if any? Of the 5 issues, i...
Sitaram Srigopal Vs. Union Carbide India Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal322,77CWN525
A.K. Sinha, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the judgment-debtor appellant against a judgment and order of affirmance rejecting his application under Section 47 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in an execution case started by the decree-holder for taking delivery of possession of the disputed property. 2. In a suit filed, inter alia, on the ground of building and re-building by the respondent Union Carbide India Ltd., for rejecting the judgment-debtor a compromise petition was effected under which the judgment-debtor agreed to deliver vacant possession of the disputed premises in parts to the decree-holder from time to time on different dates. Although possession of the separate portions of the disputed premises was delivered according to the terms of the compromise the appellant failed ultimately to deliver possession of the portion of the disputed premises with which we are now concerned and the respondent put the decree into execution. The Court in course of such executi...
Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. Vs. Chanchal Singh Kothari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Cal317
B.C. Mitra, J. 1. This is an application for an order giving the petitioner liberty to tender the minutes dated December 4, 1958, of a meeting of the Association by way of additional evidence. It is an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was pressing the application under Clause (b) only of Order 41, Rule 27 (1); in other words he contended that this document should be allowed to be tendered as additional evidence on the ground that the appellate Court required the document to be produced to enable the Court to pronounce judgment. It seems to us that this application is altogether misconceived. The document in question has been annexed to the petition; it is a minute of a meeting of the committee held on December 4, 1958. It appears that this document was disclosed by the respondent on November 16, 1964. Thereafter the petitioner made an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed. The second applic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›