Kolkata Court February 1996 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.
Amena Bibi and Others Vs. Sk. Abdul Haque
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Cal59,(1996)2CALLT12(HC)
ORDER1. Plaintiffs in T. S. 68/1973 of the 5th Court of the Assistant District Judge, Alipur have called in question the legality, validity, and the propriety of the order accepting the Advocate Commissioner's report in an application for pre-emption. The predecessors-in-interest of these petitioners filed a suit for partition and prayed for permanent injunction in T. S. 68/73 against the defendants/opposite parties. After the death of the original plaintiff, these petitioners were substituted as his legal representatives who were allowed to prosecute the suit. Sk. Abdul Haque, the defendant No. 1-opposite party contested the said suit for partition by filing his written statement. The defendant No. 1 is said to have acquired an interest in the disputed property which is a family dwelling house under several purchase deeds. He is a stranger to the family. The partition suit was preliminarily decreed on contest against the defendant No. 1 and ex parte against others. In the said suit, i...
Sk. Daiyan Ali and anr. Vs. Sk. Sekabat Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT9(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. In these two revisional applications the parties being the same and the points involved being identical, they were heard together and are disposed of hereunder.2. The opposite party in J. Misc. Case No. 94 filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for pre-emption of Plot No. 1333 of mouja uttar sonamui under Khatian No. 686. The case of opposite party in his application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is as follows:-That the lands measuring 10 decimals appartaining to R.S. Khatian No. 686 originally belonged to Sk. Md. Musa who gifted away the to his wife Masidnnesha. Donee after enjoying properties, for sometime again gave away the property to her sons Sk. Saidul Islam and Sk. Mahinuddin under registered gift deed dated 17.10.81. The two brothers sold the properties under the registered sale deed dated 7.1.84 to the revisional petitioners. The pre-emptor has alleged in his application, that he being the co-sha...
Bejoy Chand Mogha Vs. the Calcutta Municipal Corporation
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT342(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Jibon Ratan Chatterjee appearing with Mr. Badal Ch. Saha and the learned Advocate for the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Mr. Aloke Ghose. Considered the materials on record. 2. By this revision, the petitioner has challenged the order No 34 dated 3rd June, 1995 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, in case No. 904/1988, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the petitioner herein to pay commercial surcharge as a part of the consolidated rate as under Sub-section (2) of Section (20) of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1980. 3. In view of that order, the petitioner has come up before this Court and Mr. Chatterjee contended that the commercial surcharge cannot be demanded from the petitioner for the purpose of adjudication of the appeal. Inasmuch as, no bill for the tax regarding commercial surcharge has been presented to the petitioner asking for...
Radha Prosad Sharma Vs. Sm. Bejoy Sett
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT52(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Decree dated 7th March, 1984 and 15th March, 1984 respectively in T.S. 1460 of 1977 in the Court of 9th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta directing eviction against the appellant from the suit premises.2. The respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed the suit for eviction of the appellant (hereinafter referred as defendant) from the suit premises. The plaintiff claims to be an absolute owner of the premises No. 106/1A, S.N.Banerjee Road, P.S. Taltola, Calcutta which consisted of the main building and also a tin shed in front of it. In addition to the building and tin-shed, there are other eight rooms, bath and privy in the back portion thereof. She lived in the suit house after the death of her husband long since. Her only son was living in hostel studying medicine in the R.G.Kar Medical College. The defendant gained confidence of the plaintiff since he was introduced by the latter's father and th...
Joyanta Shit Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Shit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC434
Surya Kumar Tiwari, J.1. This petition has been filed against the order dated llth January, 1993, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Midna-pore Sadar, in M.P. No. 499 of 1991.2. The opposite party had filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. alleging that she is the wife of the petitioner and had been living with him ever since June, 1990. A child was born out of this wedlock. The petitioner had failed to maintain the child. Hence an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was filed.3. Subsequently by an application dated 8.9.1992 the opposite party applied for amending the petition seeking to claim maintenance for her also. The said petition was allowed and the said order is under challenge in this revisional petition.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on .the ground that the said order allowing the amendment amounts to harassment to the petitioner. That the opposite party has initiated the criminal case under Section...
Utpal Subarna Vs. the State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2189
ORDERN.K. Batabyal, J.1. This revisional application is directed against the Order dated 26-8-92, passed by the Id. Asst. Sessions Judge, Purulia, framing charge under Sees. 376/420/493 of the I.P.C. in SC Case No. 75 of 1991, arising out of Purulia Town, P.S. Case No. 143/1989 dated 2-8-89 under Section 376 and 420 of the IPC.2. On 2nd August, 1989, Ratna Chatterjee of Dulmi, Purulia lodged a petition of complaint before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Purulia and the said complaint was sent to Purulia Town, P.S. Case for treating same as F.I.R. The petitioner who is a young man, gainfully employed, in Tata Yodogawa Ltd. is a resident of Vill. Muri of P.S.- Silli, Dist. Ranchi. Smt. Ratna Chatterjee and the petitioner were known to each other from before and the petitioner used to come to the house of the complainant. Ratna, O.P. No. 2 who is a graduate with Honours in Economics from Chaibasa College. In December, 1987, the petitioner came to the house of Ratna. He often visited ...
In Re: Mrs. A.M. Somersetts
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT109(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. These two revisional applications are directed against the orders dated 29th June, 1994 and 14th July, 1994 respectively passed by the Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore in Original Suit 5 of 1991 and Misc. Case 16 of 1994 arising out of the Original suit 5 of 1991 on an application for review filed by the revisionist against the order dated 29th June, 1994. Both the revisions were heard together and are disposed of hereunder.2. one Mrs. Mary Winfred Earle died on 30th August, 1950 leaving a will under which she is said to have bequeathed all her properties in favour of two surviving sons, namely, Redmound E.M. Earle and Neville Williams. Earle Redmound was appointed as Executor in the said will. Undisputedly Redmound took out the probate of the will as an Executor. The eldest son of Mrs. Mary Winfred Earle, Clearance Borderick Elwin Earle, predeceased his mother leaving behind his widow and the petitioner. As such the petitioner is the elder brothe...
Bina Tewari Vs. Chandra Prakash Munshi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: I(1996)DMC606
S. Narayan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Petitioner-wife against the judgment and order dated 9.6.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, 10th Court Alipur, whereby her prayer for a decree of divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on the ground of cruelty, was refused.2. The Petitioner, Bina Tewari, asserted solemnization of her marriage with the Respondent, Chandra Prakash Munshi, as per the provision of Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Marriage Officer of District 24 Parganas on 2nd November, 1988. Since both of them then happened to be next door neighbours, some intimacy grew between them and, ultimately, they decided to marry and, accordingly, they went for a certificate of their marriage as such. After the solemnization of the marriage the respondent, however, left the petitioner to her father's place and assured her that he would take her to the matrimonial home after securing an employment for himself. Sometime, thereafter, when the petitioner me...
Manimala Ghosh Vs. Prafulla Kumar Ghosh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)1CALLT349(HC)
Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heard the submissions of the learned senior advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury with Ms. Rani Srimal and the learned advocate for the opposite party Mr. Sudipto Maitra appearing with Mr. S. Pachhal. 2. Considered the materials on record. 3. By this Revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff as petitioner has challenged Order No.3 dated 7th August, 1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 153 of 1995. The matter arises in the background of the case that the plaintiff, petitioner herein, filed a suit for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction in the Court of the learned Munsif, Fourth Court, Howrah where it has been registered as Title Suit No. 177 of 1995. In that suit, the plaintiff also made an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned Trial Court passed an ad- interim Order of status quo, by his Order No...
Sushil Kumar Jaiswal and Another Vs. Bank of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Cal323,100CWN627
ORDER1. The main revisional application is taken up for hearing along with the application for interim order in view of the Court's order dated 6-2-1996. Both the matters are disposed of by the following order.2. Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee appearing with the learned Advo-cate Mr. Supriya Ranjan Saha and the learned Advocate for. the opposite party No. 1, Bank of India, Mr. Utpal Bose appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee. Mr. Banerjee undertakes to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Bank of India in course of this day. Let that undertaking be recorded. Considered the materials on record. The Power filed in Court just now be kept on record.By the instant application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and/or final order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 3rd August, 1995, in Original Application No. 86 of 1994, by which the Tribunal adjudg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »