Kolkata Court October 2007 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.
Prabhat Kumar Paul Vs. Shree Shree Lakshmi Janardan Thakur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN445
Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Suit No. 620 of 1982 of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff-deities.2. The plaintiff-deities' case briefly stated is as follows:One Kailash Chandra Dey, the original owner of the suit property, made out an Arpannama dated April 11, 1903 making the suit properties along with others 'debuttar' after dedicating the same in favour of Shri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur, Sri Sri Vairabeswar Shib Thakur, Sri Sri Kailash Nath Shib Thakur i.e. plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. In such Arpannama, Sri Sri Kailash Chandra Dey himself was appointed the first shebait of the plaintiff-deities. While the plaintiff-deities were being represented by such shebait and the debuttar estate under the Arpannama was being managed by such sebaits as per terms of the Arpannama, in or about 1948, a dispute arose between the then sebaits on the issue of ma...
W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education and ors. Vs. Shyamanand Jha ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CHN789,[2007(115)FLR967]
ORDER:24. The appeal thus succeeds and allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.25. There would be no order as to costs.26. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for.Tapas Kumar Giri, J.27. I agree....
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ajabul Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)ARBLR209(Cal),(2007)3CALLT634(HC),2008(1)CHN16
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.Facts:1. The appellant entrusted the respondent to construct guardwall to protect erosion of the river Ganga near Farakka. The job was to be completed within 90 days commencing from May 1, 1982. Site was, however, not handed over to the respondent admittedly on May 1, 1982 when they were supposed to start the work. According to the respondent there had been delay of 40 days in handing over the site. The appellant, however, contended that it was handed over on May 6, 1982 i.e. after 5 days. The Arbitrator found that such delay was for 21 days. The Arbitrator observed that nobody could produce any documentary evidence wherefrom the exact date of handing over could be found.The work was completed after about six months. Running bills were paid from time to time. The final bill was, however, kept pending for a long time. Apart from the cost of work the respondent raised various claims on account of idle labour charges, extra cost borne by them, cost of materials not...
Smt. Kabita Bhattacharya Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT396(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The petitioner is questioning the order of the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal dated November 30, 2005 removing her from the office of non-official marriage officer and non-official marriage registrar in terms of provisions of the West Bengal Special Marriage Rules, 1969, Rule 27 and the Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1958, Rule 11.2. By order dated January 11, 1995 the State Government appointed her as a marriage officer for the purpose of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. By another order dated September 22, 1995 the State Government appointed her as a non-official Hindu marriage registrar under Section 3 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Proceedings for her removal were initiated by issuing a charge-sheet dated February 19, 2003. As many as eleven charges were levelled against her. She submitted her reply on March 20, 2003. Then by an order dated November 7, 2003 the State Government removed her from office. Feeling aggrieved s...
Rameswara Home and Apartments (Pvt.) Limited Vs. Manojlal Seal and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN349
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. This order will dispose of A.P. No. 331 of 2005 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act') as well as application G.A. No. 211 of 2003 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the two are interconnected and arise out of the same transaction.2. The respondents were and are the absolute joint owners of Premises No. 6, Victoria Terrace, Calcutta. On 24th April. 1991. they entered into an agreement in writing with the petitioner, described therein as 'Developer'. Under the said agreement, the petitioner agreed to appoint the developer as the exclusive Developer for the purpose of undertaking the development of the said premises. At that time the premises was in the possession of two tenants viz.. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd in respect of the ground floor flat and Octavious Steel & Co. Ltd (now known as Octavious Tea & Industries Limited) in the first floor flat. The petitioner agreed to get the premises vacated from the tenants. It w...
Radha Giri (Pradhan) Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN661
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge which reads as under:The petitioner is permitted to appear for the interview for the purpose of selection for appointment to the post in question, as prayed for in the writ petition, along with other sponsored candidates on or before 30th of December, 2006 or any other subsequent date or dates. The case of the petitioner will be considered at par with other sponsored candidates for such selection.This writ petition is, thus, disposed of.There will be no order as to costs.Learned Advocate for the writ petition is given liberty to communicate the gist of the order to the concerned authority.2. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the same has been passed at the first hearing of the matter. We are of the considered opinion, that the aforesaid order cannot be sustained on the simple ground that the order finally disposing of a writ petition mu...