Kolkata Court May 1982 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.
Mrs. Myrtle Stephenson Vs. Robert Stephenson and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal31,(1983)1CompLJ69(Cal),86CWN924
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. 1. After perusing the records we are unable to confirm under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act the decree for divorce granted by the learned District Judge dissolving the marriage of the petitioner Mrs. Myrtle Stephenson. Any petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act may be presented to the 'District Court' which according to Section 3 means the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction under this Act the husband and wife reside or last resided together. In the instant case the petitioner-wife neither pleaded nor proved that she and the respondent No. 1 either reside or had last resided together within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas.2. The petitioner in para i of her petition averred, no doubt, that the marriage between the parlies was registered at the Church of Christ King at 5, Syed Amir AH Avenue, P. S. Beniapukur, District 24 Parganas within the jurisdict...
Wang Chen Tshering Vs. Smt. Lorretta Tshering Nee Fuller and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal50
Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. 1. The order of the learned District Judge, Darjeeling allowing the petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, filed by the husband has been placed before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 2. After perusing the records we are satisfied that the learned District Judge has rightly allowed the petition dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No. 1, under Section 10 of the Divorce Act. 3. On the 15th Sept., 1974 the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Zakhama, Nagaland and it has been proved by evidence that thereafter the parties lived together at Mirik within the district of Darjeeling. The petitioner has proved by cogent evidence that on 27th Aug., 1977 the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home at Mirik without his consent and knowledge and had stayed in a neighbouring tea garden with the co-respondent on 29th Aug., 1979. It has been further proved by the evidence of P. W. 3 that th...
Mrs. Esther Kiron Vs. FranklIn Promod Kiron
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Cal56
Amitabha Dutta, J. 1. This is a Reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of the decree nisi passed ex parte by the learned District Judge, Burdwan for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner Mrs. Esther Kiron and respondent Mr. Franklin Promod Kiron in this Divorce Suit. 2. The petitioner-wife pleaded for a decree for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act alleging in the petition that she was married to the respondent according to Christian rites on 18-2-74 at the Baptist Church at Chitaldanga, P. O. Rupnarayanpur, P. S. Salanpur, District Burdwan within the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Burdwan. She further stated that after marriage the petitioner went to live with her husband at Gumia, District Giridih (Bihar) where they lived together till 14-6-75. Soon after her marriage the petitioner came to learn that the respondent had illicit connection with one Nili William of Chelidanga of...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Madar Bux and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1982
Reported in: [1983]140ITR821(Cal)
Chittatosh Mukherjee, J.1. Madar Bux (since deceased), the plaintiff-respondent herein, had instituted a suit against the Union of India and State of West Bengal as defendants in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Asansol, for declaring that the certificate issued and filed under Sections 5 and 6 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act in the Office of the Certificate Officer, Burdwan, in Certificate Case No. 967 of 1948/49 and the proceedings thereunder were without jurisdiction, ultra vires, ab initio null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. The defendants contested the said suit. The learned subordinate judge, Asansol, decreed the suit declaring that the Certificate Case No. 967 of 1948/49 was without jurisdiction and illegal. The Union of India represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, has preferred this appeal.2. The learned subordinate judge has rejected the contention of the plaintiff, Sk. Madar Bux, that he had no concern with the firm, M/s. Moula Bux, ...
Voltas Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1982
Reported in: [1982]51STC151(Cal)
M.N. Roy, J.1. The petitioner, Voltas Ltd., is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a manufacturer of various electrical and engineering goods and has also stated to be carrying on the business of importing into India, amongst others, electrical, mining and engineering goods or equipment on behalf of various customers, including the West Bengal State Electricity Board, Damodar Valley Corporation and Ors.s. The rule, with the corresponding interim order of injunction, restraining the respondents concerned, from enforcing or taking any steps pursuant to the concerned orders of assessment, the particulars whereof would be mentioned hereinafter, was obtained by them on 10th January, 1977. Even though the rule was made ready as regards service on 20th March, 1979 and appearances as indicated hereinbefore, were entered, no affidavit-in-opposition was filed and the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents concerned, advanced their arguments or made t...
Sikha Singh Vs. Dina Chakrabarty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Cal370,86CWN901
B.C. Chakrabarti, J.1. This re-visional application at the instance of a co-respondent in a Matrimonial Suit is directed against an order rejecting her prayer for striking out her name from the category of co-respondent.2. Opposite party No. 1 instituted the suit for a decree of divorce against opposite party No. 2 on the ground of adultery under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In this suit the wife opposite party No. 1 alleged acts of cruelty and adultery on the part of the husband opposite party No. 2. It is further alleged that the husband committed acts of adultery with the petitioner herein who was made a co-respondent in the suit. The wife also claimed damages against the co-respondent.3. In this suit, the petitioner co-respondent filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil P.C. for striking out her name. It was contended before the court below that there is no provision in the Special Marriage Act permitting joinder of a woman as a co-respondent in a w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›