Kolkata Court December 1995 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.
Sunderlal JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ962
ORDERS.B. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner who is the father of one Nisith Jain has tiled this writ application, inter alia, for the following reliefs :-'a) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any action against your petitioner's son in respect of detention order F. No. 673/120/95-CUS VIII dated 1-11-95 passed by respondent No. 3 or not to detain your petitioner's son under the provision of COFEPOSA Act, 1974.b) A writ of and/or Order and/or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind and/or withdraw the detention order passed against .your petitioner's son by the respondent No. 2 and/or order not to detain your petitioner's son under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.c) A writ of and/or order in the nature of certiorari do issue direction the respondents authorities to produce the records of the case and to certify them and after having so certified to quash the same including the order of Detent...
Smt. Sarida Bibi Vs. Amar Prasad Gagari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)IIILLJ97Cal
S. Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Appellant/Claim againstthe judgment award dated May 14, 1991 of the CourtCommissioner for Workmen's Compensation, W.B., in claim case No. 566 of 1988. The award was passedfor Rs. 43,382 as against a claim for Rs. 86,764 Theclaimant, being aggrieved of the quantum ofcompensation as per the award, has come up withthe present appeal. 2. One Majaffer Ali Shek (Deceased, husband of the Claimant) was a driver of motor lorry., bearing Registration No. WBK-4390, under the Employment of the O.Ps./Respondents first party, who were the owner of the lorry. The O.Ps./Respondents first party were members of a partnership firm; and the lorry was used for running the business of the firm. The lorry had the coverage of an Insurance Policy under the insurer. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. i.e. O.P./ Respondent No. 2. It so happened that on January 7, 1988 at about 8.00 a.m. the aforesaid lorry, while being driven by the Claimant's husband, met a road accident near...
Sohanlal Dugar Vs. Dwarka Nath Jha, Chairman and Others
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Cal279
1. This is an application of the plaintiff for appointment of receiver over premises Nos. 42A, 42B and 41/1, at Jawa-harlal Nehru Road, Calcutta (hereafter referred to as the 'said property'), injunction restraining the defendants from selling, making any construction on or parting with possession of the said property, injunction restraining the defendants from registering any convenience relating to said property, obtaining any sanction for construction thereon and for an order of maintenance of status quo regarding the said property. This application has been made in a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 28th December, 1991 for sale of the said property and for recovery of damages in addition to specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 28th December, 1991.2. Before going into the merits of the case and respective submissions of the parties, I would like to state the undisputed facts relating to the property in question. The property in question originally ...
Sunil Kumar Basu and Two ors. Vs. Dr. Dwinjendra Nath Mitra and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT249(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the reversing judgment and Decree dated 20.6.1978 passed by Subordinate Judge, Alipore in T.A. No. 1029/78 dismissing the plaintiff suit for permanent injunction. The facts leading to this appeal are summarily stated:- 2. The plaintiff No. 1 who is the appellant in this case who along with other co-plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1 restraining him from interfering with the construction work of a boundary wall on the estern end of the common passage described in schedule 'A' to the plaint. Plaintiff No. 1 and the Plaintiff No. 2 whose interest was devolved upon proforma defendants 3 and 4 are the owners of the premises No. 16/C and 16/A situated in Abinash Chandra Banerjee Lane. The other plaintiffs namely, orginally numbered as plaintiffs 2 and 4 are the joint owners of the premises No. 16/B, Abinash Chandra Banerjee Lane. The defendant No. 1/respondent is the owner of the premises No....
Debashish Srimani and anr. Vs. Sm. Kamala Pal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ972
ORDERArun Kumar Dutta, J.1. The Petitioners are represented by their Learned Advocates. There is none to represent any of the Opposite Party-Contemners, who are absent without any step. Heard the Learned Advocate for the Petitioners as such in the absence of the Opposite Party-Contemners.2. Upon hearing the Learned Advocate for the Petitioners and perusal of the materials on record it appears that the petitioners had filed an application for Contempt of Court against the Opposite Parties-Contemners (hereinafter referred to as O.P.S.) for wilful and deliberate violation of the order of injunction dated 9th October, 1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.R. No. 3801 of 1991. On the basis of the allegations made therein a Contempt Rule was issued against the Opposite Parties. But the Rule could not be served upon the Opposite Party-Contemner No. 1 Smt. Kamala Pal despite repeated endeavours, who had eventually refused to accept the Rule, as appearing from the Bailiffs Re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›