Kolkata Court February 1997 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.
Buddheswar Ghosh and ors. Vs. Ekkari Ghosh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)2CALLT43(HC)
Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.1. The first appeal is against a decree for declaration and partition. The defendants are appellants. The plaintiffs belonged to the same branch of the family and the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and defendants were brothers.2. The dispute involve in the appeal appears to be confined to the properties mentioned in the schedule attached to written statement. The other properties included in the plaint schedule, apart from those properties in the schedule of the written statement, appear to be not seriously claimed by the defendants/appellants. The Genaeological Table at page 34 of the paper book indicates the relationship between the parties.3. The basis of plaintiffs claim with regard to the properties scheduled in the written statement is that though the properties stand in the name of the mother of the defendants they are really properties acquired out of joint family properties and as such he claims to have equal share with the defendants. The ...
In Re Vivekananada Nidhi and Others Vs. Smt. Ashima Goswami
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Cal340,(1997)2CALLT48(HC),1997(1)CHN418
ORDER1. The opposite party Smt. Ashima Goswami as a plaintiff instituted a suit against the petitioners for declaration and for permanent injunction. This suit was filed in the 2nd Court of the Munsif, at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) which was registered as title suit No.359 of 1991. The petitioners entered appearance in the suit and here contesting the same by filing their written statement and additional written statement wherein one of the pleas was that the Munsif, 2nd Court at Alipore had no jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground that the valuation of the suit property exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif, 2nd Court at Alipore. It appears from record that on 26th October, 1995 the petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for necessary order necessary order for rejection of the plaint in limine for its inherent defects. The said application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Proced...
Santoshthakur Vs. Allahabad Bank of India (Sic)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)1CALLT408(HC)
B. Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal is at the Instance of the defendant No.2 and is directed against Order No.55 dated June 7, 1997 passed by the Assistant District Judge. 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 19 of 1992 whereby the learned trial Judge allowed two applications filed by the respondent No. 1, one for Injunction and the other for appointment of Receiver,2. The aforesaid title Suit No.19 of 1992 was filed by the respondent No. 1 against the appellant and opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 thereby praying. inter alia, for recovery of money and for enforcement of hypothecation and mortgage. The prayer portion and the schedule annexed to the plaint are quoted hereunder :--'(a) Decree for Rs. 8.99,793.56 against the defendants jointly and severally; alternatively as regards defendants Nos.3 and 4 an enquiry into their respective liability to the plaintiff and a decree against each of them for the sum found due on such enquiry; (b) Interest from February 16, 1992 till filing of the suit,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Varas International (P.) Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1997
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Cal)369,[1997]225ITR831(Cal)
Visheshwar Nath Khare, C.J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-III, Calcutta, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law to this court for its opinion :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1988, to Section 43B(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has been explained as clarificatory of legislative intention by the Explanatory Notes issued by the Government, the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that the said amendment will be retrospective in its application ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 2(10) of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909, by applying the principles of 'ejusdem generis' the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the priviledged and specified fee as mentioned in Rules 2 and 6 of the Excise Rules cannot ...
Samir Paramanick Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2447
Debi Prasad Sarkar-II, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and Order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 87/1989 arising out of the Sessions Case No. 43/1988 having reference to Barabazar Police Case No. I dated 11-9-1987 corresponding to the 25th Bhadra, 1394 B.S. under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts leading to this Appeal, in short, are that on 11-9- 1987 the wife of the convict-appellant was murdered in the house of her father-in-law with a knife. The father-in-law was in' the field at that time but he was informed by PW-1 about the incident and he rushed home at about 1.00 p.m. and found the dead body of his daughter-in-law with multiple injuries lying near the bed in their bed-room.3. Meanwhile, the convict -appellant i.e. the husband of the deceased went to (be Police Station and reported the incident to the police. The police made a G.D. Entry on the basis of information and kept him confin...
Massdak HossaIn Vs. State of W.B. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Cal270
ORDERN.K. Bhattacharya, J. 1. Heard the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ramdulal Manna appearing with Mr. M. Alam Sk., the learned Advocate for the State, Mrs. Pratima Prativa Chowdhury and the learned Advocate for respondent No. 7, Mr. Jayanta Kr. Das. Considered the materials on record. 2. The matter relates to a particular pond though actually it is a lake named as 'Pir Pukur'. having an area of 2.78 acres. According to the petitioner, he took lease of the said pond from Daulatpur Gram Panchayat for a period of 10 years starting from 18th April, 1992 to be ended on 31st March, 2001. Further allegation of the petitioner is that the said pond was settled by way of lease by the then Prodhan of Daulatpur Gram Panchayat, P.S. Harischandrapur, Dist-Malda, in terms of certain resolution. Be it mentioned that the said Prodhan has not been made a party in this case, nor the members of the Gram Panchayat have been made parties in this writ application. It has further...
Sk. Murshidul Islam Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1757
Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the proceeding and the investigation arising out of the FIR in Karaya P. S. case No. 76 dated 6-4-95 under Sections 420/468/471 / 406/120B IPC. This petition was initially moved before a learned Single Judge namely, A. B. Mukherjee, J. on 19-8-96. The learned Judge inter alia directed that the investigation of the case would proceed in accordance with law but there would not be any arrest of the accused (petitioner) without the leave of the Court on condition that the petitioner would allow himself to be interrogated in course of the investigation at all reasonable times. On 10-10-96 the matter came up before another learned single Judge, namely, S. K. Tiwari, J. but the learned Judge released the matter and directed for being placed before the appropriate Bench. On 14-10-1996 another learned single Judge, N.K. Bhattacharyya, J. for reasons stated in the order of the said date, directed fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›