Kolkata Court February 2004 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.
Shila Chatterjee Vs. Tapan Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CHN376
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. Two applications both under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure; one for transfer of a divorce suit being Matrimonial Petition No. 31 of 2001 and another for transfer of guardianship proceeding being Misc. Case No. 220 of 2001, were filed by the wife petitioner before this Court. The application for transfer of Matrimonial Petition No. 31 of 2001 from the Court of 2nd Bench of the Family Court Calcutta to the Court of the learned District Judge at Alipore was registered as C.O. No. 2010 of 2001. The other application for transfer of Misc. Case No. 220 of 2001 from the Court of the Principle Judge, 1st Family Court, Calcutta to the Court of the learned District Judge at Alipore was registered as C.O. No. 9 of 2002.2. Since the parties in both the applications are same and the grounds for transfer in both the applications are also similar to each other, I propose to dispose of both these applications analogously and by a common order.3. In both the afor...
Raufunnessa Bibi and Sk. Abdul Majid Being Dead by their Heirs and Lrs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CHN154
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 of Title Suit No. 124 of 1972 challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.1976 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 119 of 1975 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1975 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court, Chandernagore in Title Suit No. 124 of 1972.2. The case as has been made out by the plaintiff in the plaint is inter alia as follows:--The suit property originally belonged to defendant No. 1 Saraswati Ojha. The defendant No. 4 Sunil Kumar Ojha is her husband. The defendant No. 1 Saraswati Ojha through her husband and one Gour Chandra Dhanki made negotiation and a talk of sale took place and the plaintiff Md. Israfil expressed his desire to purchase the suit property. The price was settled at Rs. 4000/-The defendant Nos. 1 and 4 accordingly informed the plaintiff to visit Calcutta (where they lived) on 11th Jaistha, 137...
Mohon Jatia and ors. Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Cal326,II(2005)BC212,(2004)3CALLT527(HC),2005(2)CTLJ83(Cal)
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. This application is made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal as on 25th January, 2000 under No. 16 therein. By such order, the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal rejected the application of the guarantor about quantification of the loss occurred in respect of security when admittedly it was the custody of the Receiver appointed at the instance of the Bank. The only point has been taken by the Tribunal that as because theft occurred in 1991 and the application made after 9 years, the application is nothing but attempt of dilatory tactics. Therefore, the same is to be dismissed. At the time of dismissal a question arose as to whether the learned counsel for the defendant is ready for peremptory hearing or not, which was answered in negative. However, it has recorded that the defendant has declined to cross-examine the plaintiff-witness, P.W...
Swapna Lahiri Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT541(HC),[2004(102)FLR41]
M. Sinha, J.1. The writ petitioner herein, has essentially sought for a mandatory order in the form of writ directing the respondents concerned to approve the appointment of the petitioner as lower-division-clerk in Rishi Bankim Chandra College, at Naihati, in the District of North 24 Parganas.2. The said approval has been sought for in favour of the petitioner from the date of her joining as a lower division-clerk in the post in question. The petitioner has, needless to mention, sought for an order of payments of salary on the basis of the Pay Scale mentioned in the letter of her appointment.3. A restrained order by way of an interim protection has also been sought for against the concerned respondents restraining them from interfering with the service of the petitioner as the lower-division-clerk in the said College. The facts of this case are as follows:4. The husband of the petitioner, Late Amit Kumar Lahiri, was a Lecturer in Physics of the said Rishi Bankim Chandra College, In th...
iag Co. Ltd. Vs. Triveni Glass Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)3CALLT71(HC),2004(29)PTC665(Cal),[2004]51SCL498(Cal)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 213 of 2003 has taken out this interlocutory application (G.A. No. 2709 of 2003) dated July 31st, 2003. The prayers in the suit are as follows :--'(a) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and assigns and each of them from in any way infringe (sic) or causing, enabling others to infringe the design of KARATACHI glass registered under No. 183322 by using the glass design as shown in annexure 'B' to the plaint;(b) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and assigns and each of them from in any way infringe (sic) or causing, enabling others to infringe the copyright in the artistic work by making three dimensional reproduction thereof in glasses;(c) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents and assigns and each of them from in any way passing off design glasses of the plaintiff by manufacturing and/or selling glass having...
The State of West Bengal Vs. Sk. Golam Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT34(HC)
Dilip Kumar Seth, J.1. All these four appeals are taken up simultaneously since these involve similar question of fact and law.2. Assailing the judgment and decree passed in L.R.A. Case Nos. 215 to 218 of 1993(V) passed by the learned Additional Special L.A. Judge, 1st Court, 24 Parganas (South) on 11th of April, 1994, Mr. Basu argued that the valuation was disproportionately enhanced relying on an inadmissible document. The document (Ext. 1) on which reliance was placed was not proved. According to him, Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) though permits reception of evidence without examination of the vendor and the vendee of the document yet it does not permit the Court to treat such evidence as sacrosanct. The Court has to weigh the evidence in order to arrive at a conclusion, which the Court did not do. According to him, the Court did not apply its mind and had simply followed the earlier judgment, which did neither operate as res judicata nor as a precedent. M...
Smt. Kakali Das Vs. Dr. Asish Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Cal176,2004(3)CHN516,I(2005)DMC397
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal against judgment and decree dated February 21, 2003 passed by the learned District Judge at Port Blair, District Andaman in Matrimonial Suit No. 5 of 1998.2. By the impugned judgment and decree the learned District Judge decreed the suit filed by the husband, the respondent in this appeal, on contest, but without any order as to costs and granted the said plaintiff a decree for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and consequently, the marriage between the parties stood dissolved.3. Being aggrieved the wife-defendant has come up with this appeal before this Court. This appeal was taken up for hearing in the Circuit Bench at Port Blair, by consent of the parties, however, the records of the appeal have been transferred to Calcutta for disposal.4. This case has a chequered history. The marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites and customs at Port Blair, District ; Andaman on December 12, 1994. T...
Sri Samar Kumar Das Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)1CALLT575(HC)
A.K. Bisi, J.1. The instant revision application has arisen out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur on 27.6.2003 in Cr. Appeal No. 6/2001.2. By the judgment and order impugned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raiganj, dismissed the criminal appeal, preferred by the present petitioner, and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raiganj, on 26.4.1999 in G.R. 1280/88. It appears from the materials on record that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raiganj, convicted the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. On appeal preferred by the convict, presently the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Raiganj, upheld the order of convi...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Jharna Sarkar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: (2004)2CALLT433(HC),2004(2)CHN606
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited the appellant abovenamed is one of the oil companies empowered to deal with kerosene oil. Under the kerosene oil Control Order the oil companies are to appoint agents for distribution of kerosene oil on their behalf. In turn the agents are to distribute kerosene to the dealers and in turn dealers to the various retailers. The dealers and/or retailers are appointed by the State whereas agents are appointed by the oil companies.2. The respondent is a partnership firm carrying on business dealing with kerosene oil in the district of 24-Parganas (South) as well as Kolkata. The said firm was initially a proprietorship concern. On September 26, 1966 the said proprietorship concern M/s. Jharna Sarkar was appointed agent by the appellant for dealing with kerosene oil on behalf of the said oil company. In terms of the said agreement appearing at pages 115 to 117 of the Paper Book the said proprietorship concern was granted agency in resp...
Amita Dudhoria Vs. Goutam Dudhoria and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CHN624
ORDERD. K. Seth, J.1. The order dated December 2, 1997 passed in GA No. 3668 of 1997 and GA No. 4167 of 1997 in CS No. 384 of 1977 by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in this appeal APO No. 596 of 1997 (APOT No. 742 of 1997). By the said order the appellant's application for setting aside the sale and the respondent's application for confirmation of the sale had since been disposed of by affirming the sale and dismissing the application for setting aside the sale.2. The suit CS No. 384 of 1977 out of which the present proceeding arises was a suit for partition instituted in 1997. The shares were declared on 27th July, 1979. Except three properties all properties were divided in two lots and the respective lots were allotted to the respective parties according to the respective share. The parties all along claiming moiety share in between the two groups descending from two predecessors. These three properties were allowed to be put on sale in between the parties without valua...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »