Kolkata Court July 2006 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.
Sk. Rafid UddIn and anr. Vs. Sk. Korbar UddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2006)3CALLT658(HC)
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought for revision of the order being No. 96 dated 09.08.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Second Court, Contai. Midnapore (East) in T.S. 23/2002 refusing to mark exhibits some certified copies of registered deeds of sale, gift and exchange, all said to be of more than 30 years old documents, on the basis of volumes produced from the office of concerned Registrars.2. Mr. Mahato, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, on referring the cases of Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti reported in : AIR1990SC396 and S. Mahimaidoss v. Vanathayya reported in : AIR2000Mad288 contended that there is a presumption under Section 79 of the Evidence Act regarding correctness of certified copy referred to in Clause (1) of Section 63 of the said Act and a certified copy of a registered deed may be produced as secondary evidence in the absence of the original, and revision ...
Ashish Alias Piklu Das Vs. Debabrata Acharya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)2CALLT592(HC),2007(1)CHN198
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. The hearing stems from an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Maldah in Misc. Appeal 26/2003 setting aside the order being No. 8 dated 28.10.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), First Court, Maldah in O.C. Suit No. 141/03.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that thepetitioner's father Bibhuti Bhusan Das and his two brothers BhupatiBhusan Das and Manindra Mohan Das were joint owners of l/3rd shareeach of a bastu land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 1389. Khatian No. 341, Mouza Phulbari. P.S. English Bazar, Maldah, as described in schedule 'Ka'. Bhupati died leaving behind four sons. The land was partitioned amongst Bibhuti. Manindra and the said legal heirs of Bhupati by a registered deed of partition dated 27.02.91. and 0330 sahasrangsha, as described in schedule '...
West Bengal Primary Organiser Teachers' Association and Ors. Vs. the S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)1CALLT96(HC)
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The petitioner No. 1, a registered Association of Primary Organiser Teachers of West Bengal alongwith its General Secretary and President filed this writ petition claiming different reliefs against different set of respondents in this writ petition.2. The reliefs which are prayed for by the petitioners against the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, are as follows:A) A writ in the nature of Mandamus calling upon the respondent authorities:i) to act in accordance with law;ii) to cancel, recall, withdraw notification of the District Project Officer, 'Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan', South 24-Parganas bearing No. DPEP & SSA/South 24-Parganas dated illegible being annexure 'p/8' hereto;B) A writ in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the respondents to produce and/or cause to be produced all the relevant records of this case so that on perusing the same justice may be done between the parties by quashing the impugned notification of the District Project Officer, 'Sarva Sikshya A...
Rita Kumari Shahu @ Saha Vs. Shyam Sundar Shahu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)1CALLT536(HC),2007(1)CHN578
Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J.1. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for revision of the order dated 10.04.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Permanent Lok Adalat, Uttar Dinajpur in Pre-litigation Case No. 79/2005.2. The circumstances leading to the above application are that the marriage of the petitioner with the O.P. was solemnized on 14.12.2003 according to Hindu rites and customs. She was subjected to ill-treatment and torture by the O.P. who by coercion and undue pressure obtained her signatures on a purported petition and filed the same before the District Legal Services Authority, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj on 05.04.2005 when it was registered as Pre-litigation Case No. 79/2005 and was transferred to the Permanent Lok Adalat at Raiganj which passed an award on 10.04.2005 declaring the marriage between her and the O.P. dissolved by a decree of mutual divorce. The petition was drafted in Bengali, but the petitioner cannot read, ...
Ram Prakash Dwivedi Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Reported in: (2007)2CALLT203(HC)
Sailendra Prasad Talukdar, J.1. Petitioner, Ram Prakash Dwivedi, by filing an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought for quashing of the proceeding brought against him under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code being Miscellaneous Petition Case No. 39 of 2004 on the basis of false and fabricated allegation. This relates to Naxalbari Police Station Case No. 96 of 2001 dated 28.7.2004 under Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (G.R. No. 686 of 2004), now pending before the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri, Darjeeling.2. Grievances of the petitioner, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows:One Narendra Nath Singh, a private security guard, filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Court of sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri. The learned Court after pursuin...
Chandra Sekhar Prasad Sinha Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)3CALLT631(HC)
Indira Banerjee, J.1. The question involved in this writ application is whether a teacher can be kept under suspension indefinitely on the sole ground that he had been arrested and kept in custody in connection with criminal proceedings initiated against him.2. The petitioner, a teacher of Bani Vidyalaya High School at Burnpur in Burdwan, hereinafter referred to as the school, was suspended on or about 29th November, 1999 by the Managing Committee of the school and has since been kept under suspension in the circumstances stated hereinafter.3. On or about 26th June, 1991 the petitioner got married. After over 7 years of marriage, the petitioner's wife Indu Devi lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 498A and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.4. The petitioner was arrested on 8th November, 1999 when the petitioner visited his native village and detained in custody from 9th November, 1999 till his release on...
Purushottam Lal Singhania Vs. Delhi Public School and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Cal313
ORDERJayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition against the unaided private school is not maintainable. I permitted the parties to exchange affidavits regarding the objection; accordingly opposition and reply have been filed.2. On the strength of the Apex Court decision in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. : [1993]1SCR594 , counsel for the petitioner argues that since right to education is a fundamental right, the school, discharging a public duty, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. He contends that by issuing the transfer certificate to the petitioner's son arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice, it has infringed his fundamental right to education. His contention is that if a fundamental right is even remotely affected, the aggrieved person is entitled to approach the writ Court against the violator, public or private whatever it be.3. Counsel for the respondents disput...
Arch Hi-rise (P) Ltd. Vs. YatIn Bhimani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CHN204
1. This appeal will be heard.2. Since the real contesting party, namely the plaintiff, has already entered appearance, service of notice upon the other defendants/respondents stands dispensed with. Filing of Paper Books and all other formalities also stand dispensed with. Lower Court's records need not be called for.3. By consent of the contesting parties, appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for hearing along with the connected application.4. The defendant No. 2 is aggrieved by the Order No. 2 dated 7th June, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore in Title Suit No. 80 of 2006. On examination of the available records and the order passed by the learned District Judge of the Court below, it appears that the defendant No. 1 herein as the owner of the suit premises entered into a development agreement with the defendant No. 4 for construction of the multi-storied building in the suit premises on certain terms and conditions. The said agreement was, however, signed b...
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Ratan Lal Jain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-05-2006
Reported in: 2007(207)ELT185(Cal)
ORDER1. The Court : The writ petitioner/respondent was transporting betel nuts through three trucks which were seized by the customs authority. A show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was given to the writ petitioner/respondent. After considering the reply to the show-cause notice the adjudicating authority passed a reasoned order dated November 24, 1999 appearing at pages 29-50 of the paper book. The authority came to conclusion that the department failed to prove that the betel nuts seized by the department were of foreign origin and thus directed release of the goods or payment of the sale proceeds in case goods were sold in auction. The relevant paragraph of the order of the adjudicating authority is quoted below:I order unconditional release of 33320 kgs. betel nuts valued at Rs. 47,95,200/- seized in the seizure case No. 13/IMP/CL/CUS/SLG/DPU/99, dated 7-2-99, in favour of Shri Ratan Lal Jain and Shri Vijoy Kumar Jain of Dhupguri, Jalpaiguri. In case the go...
Ranjan Kumar Sinha Vs. Prabir Kumar Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CHN560
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. Both the aforesaid appeals have been preferred from the same order being Order No. 22 dated 16th January, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1684 of 2004 whereby the learned Judge of the Court below allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff and rejected the application for injunction under Order 39 Rules1 & 2 CPC filed by defendant No. 4.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in the Court below for declaration that the said plaintiff is the sole tenant in respect of the suit premises under defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for accepting rents from the said plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with the said suit for granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »