Kolkata Court March 2005 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.
Basant Kumar Kejriwal Vs. Suman Kejriwal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal260,2005(2)CHN231
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of defendant No. 2 in a suit for partition and is directed against order dated 17th May, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Purulia in Title Suit No. 114 of 2003 thereby disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiffs-respondents thereby directing both the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 to maintain status quo in respect of nature and character of the suit property and also restraining the said defendant from transferring any portion of the property described in the Schedule of the plaint till the disposal of the suit.2, The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Purulia, thereby praying for partition of 1/7th share of each of the plaintiffs in the suit property and for separation of possession of the same. The case made out by the plaintiffs-respondents may be summarised...
Amar Nath Chakroborty Vs. Dutta Bucket Industries and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN278,2005(31)PTC415(Cal)
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This application is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction alleging violation of registered Trade Mark and copyright and also complaining 'Passing Off' and is directed against Order No. 31 dated 27th April, 2004 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 27 of 2003 thereby rejecting an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant for restraining the respondents from committing breach of Trade Mark and copyright and passing off his own goods as that of the appellant.2. The appellant filed in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, a suit being Title Suit No. 27 of 2003 thereby claiming the following relief:'(a) Declaration that the plaintiff alone is entitled to use the trade mark and/or the artistic work and/or the name, brand TAJ appearing in the label marked 'A' and annexed to the plaint for carrying on its business in respect of Buckets,...
international General Electric (India) Limited Vs. Haradhan Sasmal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal308,2005(2)CHN400
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for recovery of money and is against the judgment and decree dated 28th March, 2003 passed by the Learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Money Suit No. 234 of 1993 thereby granting a decree for Rs. 4,09, 840/- with interest @ Rs. 18 per cent per annum from 1st March, 1983 till the date of recovery of the decreed amount.2. The respondent filed the aforesaid suit being Money Suit No. 34 of 1993 against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 4,09,840/- along with interest @ 18 per cent per annum from 1st March, 1993 till recovery of the amount being the price of cost of manufacture of the goods ordered for supply, price of additional equipments, interest on the price of goods and cost or charges for storage of those goods from February, 1991 till February, 1993.3. The case made out by the plaintiff may be summarised thus:(a) The plaintiff carries on business of manufacture and supply of elect...
i.K. Merchants (P) Ltd. Vs. Sirpur Papers Mills Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Cal84,(2005)3CALLT308(HC)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. Parties before me entered into a contract for supply of goods at Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner before me is carrying on business at Calcutta whereas the respondent is situated at Andhra Pradesh. Clauses 16 and 17 of the contract stipulate as follows:'16) That for the purpose of jurisdiction of Court, this contract shall be deemed to have been entered into at Sirpur-Kagaznagar, South Central Railway, District - Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh.17) That in case of any dispute, the decision of the General Manager of our Mills shall be final and binding on you.'2. The petitioners allege that they were not paid their dues, for that they were compelled to file a Civil Suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The said suit has, however, been stayed at the instance of the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The present application has been made by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia, praying for appo...
Malati Alias Mala Alias Mita Goon and Ranadhir Goon and anr. Vs. Union ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-2005
Reported in: III(2006)ACC632,2006ACJ2455,(2006)1CALLT226(HC)
Maharaj Sinha, J. 1. The above two appeals were preferred by the claimants/appellants against the Judgment and Awards of the Claims Tribunal, Jalpaiguri, in M.A.C. Case No. 411 of 1989 and M.A.C. Case No. 413 of 1989, both dated 4th August, 1998.2. In both the above appeals the claimants/appellants primarily have challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants/appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, needless to mention also by questioning the correctness of the reasons of the said Tribunal in support of the said Awards.3. Since the above two claims before the learned Claims Tribunal arose out of the same accident and since the correctness of the said awards are under challenge on the identical grounds in both the appeals, this Judgment is intended to and will govern both the above appeals and be disposed of accordingly.4. For the sake of convenience it is to be mentioned, however, that the above claim case No. 413 o...
Chandan Sengupta Vs. Presiding Officer, 2nd Industrial Tribunal and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN351
Soumitra Sen, J.1. This application has been filed in a very peculiar facts and circumstances. The petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging his dismissal by the respondent authority CESC Ltd. The parties have been litigating for a long time. It appears from the petition that the petitioner has suffered a cerebral attack and is bed ridden. Under the circumstances, he wants to withdraw the writ petition. Expressing his desire to withdraw the writ petition he had written letters to his advocate-in-record Ms. Manisha Chatterjee. In spite of writing several letters some of which has been received by one A. Chatterjee and others which has been refused, no change has been given to the petitioner. The advocate-on-record who was appearing for the petitioner, earlier Ms. Chatterjee has personally appeared before this Court today and has submitted that she has borne all the expenses of the post litigations. If her allegations are correct, then she can proceed in accordance with law for re...
Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sundar Choudhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Cal305,2005(3)ARBLR419(Cal)
ORDERAshim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The claimant/ respondent made a claim of Rs. 23,38,257/-. Initially, the matter was referred to arbitration and the authority of the erstwhile Arbitrator was revoked by this Court under the old Arbitration Act, 1940. This Court thereafter appointed Mr. N.C. Roy Choudhury, a senior Advocate of this Court as Arbitrator. The parties participated in the proceeding. There had been 100 and odd sittings. At the 106th sitting when the arbitration was nearing its completion, Counsel for the petitioner before me took certain technical objections including challenging the authority of the Arbitrator relying on a decision of mine reported in (2003) 4 Cal HN 163 in the case of Union of India v. Pioneer Construction. In Paragraph 11 of the said decision I held that as the letter of acceptance was a conditional one and unless and until that pre-condition was fulfilled it could not be said that there had been concluded contract. Since there had been no concluded contrac...
Rejaul Karim and ors. Vs. Thakurani Baskey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-2005
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN822
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging, inter alia, the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Malda, in Appeal Case No. 5 of 2002 affirming the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Malda in Misc. Case No. 75 of 1982, has been filed by the pre-emptee/judgment-debtor in a proceeding for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.2. The pre-emptor/petitioner filed an application for exercising his right of pre-emption in respect of sale of two plots of land being plot Nos. 1330 and 1338 having an area of 1.43 acres and 21 acre of land respectively by his co-sharer to Smt. Thakurani Baskey.3. The sale which was sought to be pre-empted by the pre-emptor was effected by registered Deed of Kobala dated 4th August, 1970. Since, the said sale was effected prior to West Bengal Land R...
Sasti Mohanta Vs. State of West Bengal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CHN565,2005CriLJ3820
Alok Kumar Basu, J.1. This criminal appeal is at the instance of one Sasti Mohanta who had sufferred the sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC pursuant to a judgment and order recorded by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge, First Court, Dakshin Dinajpore at Balurghat in connection with Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1998 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 23 of 1998.2. The prosecution case, as appears from the FIR of one Lakshman Murmu dated 3rd August, 1995, is that on 2nd August, 1995 night one Daiba Mohanta, wife of the appellant, Sasti Mohanta was murdered by strangulation and on the next morning at about 7 a.m. being attracted with the sound of alarm coming from the house of the appellant, neighbours including the FIR maker rushed to the spot and noticed the deadbody of Daiba. It was disclosed in the FIR of Lakshman Murmu that the neighbours had strong suspicion about the involvement of the appellant behind the commission of murder of his wife.3. On the basis of ...
Heilgus Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CHN233
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against Order No. 3 dated 23rd April, 2004 passed by the learned Judge-in-charge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 461 of 2004 thereby refusing the prayer of ad interim injunction on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant. By the said order, the learned Trial Judge merely issued notice upon defendants to show-cause why the prayer of the plaintiff for temporary injunction should not be granted.2. The appellant filed in the City Civil Court at Calcutta the aforesaid suit being Title Suit No. 461 of 2004 thereby praying for the following relief:(a) Declaration that the defendants has got no right to deny the right of the plaintiff as a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises and/or in respect of the equivalent space to be constructed in the building at the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »