Kolkata Court June 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.
Kanak Kumar Bar and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-05-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT418(HC),100CWN744
Satyabrata Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 6.5.96 passed by B.P. Banerjee, J in CO. No. 6499(W) of 1996 whereby and whereunder His Lordship has dismissed the Writ application filed by the petitioners in limine.2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.3. There exists a dispute as regard operation of fishery by and between the petitioners and the private respondents. The appellants have filed a suit and obtained an Interim order of injunction against the said private respondents. As the private respondents had allegedly not been obeying the said order of injunction, the petitioner filed an application for grant of Police help. By order dated 19.3.96 the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Basirhat in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC directed the Officer-In-Charge, Sandeshkali Police Station to see that the order passed by the said Court is strictly obeyed. According to the petitioners, despite communication of the said order ...
Jaganath Karmakar Vs. Matrika Mohan Sarkar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT332(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. In the instant revisional application the defendant in Title Suit 94 of 1987 pending in the Court of Munsif, Additional Court, Jangipur challenged the validity, legality and propriety of the order allowing the prayer of the opposite parties/plaintiffs under Section 17(3) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.2. The facts leading to the present revisional application are stated as follows :-The plaintiffs/opposite parties brought the aforementioned suit in the court of the Munsif at Jangipur, which on transfer to the Additional Court of Munsif has been registered as T.S. 94 of 1987 against the petitioner for the khas possession of the suit premises by evicting him therefrom and for other reliefs. It is stated in the plaint that one Sripati Nath Sarkar, who has the owner of the premises sold it in favour of the plaintiffs under the strength of 4 sale deeds. The petitioner was a monthly tenant even prior to the purchase by the plaintiffs on a rental of Rs. 100/- per...
Shanti Debi Nai Vs. Harikrishna Nathani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)2CALLT161(HC)
Basudeva Panigrahi, J.1. The instant revisional application is directed against the Order No. 79 dated 24th August, 1994 in Misc. Case No. 503/89 by the 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta rejecting the petition under Section 47 C.P.C. The facts leading to this revisional application are as follows :-2. That one Jethmull Nai was originally a monthly tenant under the opposite parties in respect of one room on the top floor at premises No. 10, Rajendra Mullick Street, Calcutta-7 on monthly rental of Rs. 20/- payable according to English Calcutta. The aforementioned tenancy continued in the name of Jethmull Nai, the Petitioner's husband up to the month of August. 1960. In the month of September, 1960 it was transferred in the name of the petitioner and therefore, she continued as a tenant of the suit premises under the opposite parties and used to pay rent to them till 1979 against proper rent receipts. The opposite parties had, however, granted two receipts in the name of the petitio...
Ekam Chemical Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1996
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT46(Cal)
ORDERTarun Chatterjee, J.1. On a very technical ground this impugned order challenged in this writ application must be set aside. In this writ application the writ petitioner has challenged the order passed by Sri I. Dasgupta, Deputy Collector of Customs, Custom House, Calcutta disposing of the proceedings under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The said order is annexed at Page 90 of the Writ application.2. The only point that has been raised by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner is that in view of the mandatory provision under Section 124 of the Customs Act, the Deputy Collector had to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Writ petitioner. It appears from the records and also from the affidavit in opposition filed by the Customs Authorities that such opportunity was not given to the writ petitioner before passing a final order against the writ petitioner. Such being the admitted position. I have no other alternative but to set aside the order of the Deputy Collector ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›