Kolkata Court January 2008 Judgments
Sk. RafiuddIn Ahmed Vs. Hazi Abdur Rahim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT99(HC),2008(2)CHN40
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.1. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit for eviction against the defendant/petitioner herein on various grounds including the ground of default in payment of rent, reasonable requirement etc. under the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.In such a suit, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint by alleging therein that the defendant is not a premises tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises.2. It was further claimed by the defendant in his said application that the defendant is a thika tenant in respect of the suit premises and since the interest of the landlord in the thika tenanted property vested with the State under the provisions of Section 5 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, the defendant became a direct tenant under the State. As such, the suit is not maintainable in its present form.3. Such application o...
Tag this Judgment!Raghu Nath Biswas Vs. Rabi Ram Chandra Jaladhar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN709
ORDEREDThat the petition under Sections 137 and 138 Evidence Act be and the same is rejected on contest.4. Before proceeding to decide whether the impugned order is sustainable in law or not, in my view the two relevant sections of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 needs to be looked into. For convenience, Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act are reproduced herein below:137. Examination-in-chief.-The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.Cross-examination.-The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.Re-examination.-The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.138. Order of examinations.-Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant...
Tag this Judgment!The Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. Himani Alloys Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT278(HC),2008(2)CHN28
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. This is an application for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Three grounds have been urged: that no part of the plaintiffs cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court; that the forum selection clauses in the plaintiffs invoices required the suit not to be instituted before this Court; and, as an alternative to the first ground, that the balance of convenience is against the continuation of the suit in this Court.2. The suit is for price of goods sold and delivered. Paragraphs 4 and 7 of the plaint are the principal basis on which the territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. At paragraph 4 of the plant it is averred that purchase orders were placed by the defendant on the plaintiff at its office within jurisdiction where at the plaintiff accepted such orders. At paragraph 7 it is stated that part payments were made by the defendant to the plaintiff, and accepted by the plaintiff, at the plaintiffs off...
Tag this Judgment!Kalipada Kirtan Vs. Bijoy Bag and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal63,2008(2)CHN105
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for partition and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ghatal, Midnapore, in Title Suit No. 56 of 1995, thereby declaring that the plaintiff has 1 /3rd share in 'ka' and 'kha' scheduled property and the defendants have 2/3rd share therein with a direction upon the parties to amicably partition the property within five months from the date of decree.2. It appears that the plaintiff, a sister filed a suit for partition against her brothers claiming 1/3rd share on the allegation that she inherited the property through her father.3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement thereby contending that the title of the plaintiff in the property had been extinguished by adverse possession of the defendants. It was further contended that the property being family dwelling house and the plaintiff being a f...
Tag this Judgment!Dipendra Mohan Sen and ors. and Voice of People and anr. Vs. the State ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)2CALLT139(HC),2008(1)CHN1017
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.1. These two writ petitions are identical in all respects and shall be disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners seek the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents authorities to act in accordance with law and to forthwith recall/rescind/revoke all decisions/directions/orders/notifications relating to the holding of Book Fair at Park Circus Maidan. In the first writ petition the petitioners are residents of the locality and apprehended to be adversely affected in case the Book Fair is permitted to be held at the Park Circus Maidan. The petitioners in the second writ petition claimed to be a Non-Governmental Organization formed for the purpose of various social activities, serving the people, fighting on issues concerning various walks of life, striving for the betterment of the society. Respondent No. 13 is an Association of Publishers & Booksellers of Kolkata, registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Arunodoya Plantations Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of West Bengal and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC415,(2008)2CALLT166(HC)
Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This application under Section 482 Cr PC has been filed for quashing the proceedings in case No. C-5341 of 2001 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Court of learned 5th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.2. The case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed before the learned Magistrate by the O.P. No. 2 herein against the petitioners herein alleging that accused No. 2 at the time of the commission of the offence was in-charge of and was responsible to the accused No. 1 Company for the conduct of the business. In the discharge of its liability towards the complainant the accused Company issued two cheques bearing No.070561 dated 15.6.2001 amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- and cheque No. 070568 dated 31.7.2001 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, India Exchange place, Kolkata.3. Within the period of validity of the said cheques, the complainant presented the same for payment through its banker, State Bank o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas109(Cal),(2008)4CompLJ196(Cal),[2009]89SCL255(Cal)
Patherya, J.1. This is an application for sanctioning the scheme of arrangement between the transferor and transferee companies. Advertisements were issued in the respective dailies fixing the date of the meeting and meetings of the shareholders of both the transferor and the transferee companies were held under the chairmanship of chairpersons appointed by this hon'ble court. The schemes of arrangement were put to vote and were passed unanimously without any modification. This will appear from the report of the chairpersons filed in respect of the transferor and transferee companies. Thereafter, once again advertisements were issued in the dailies with notice to the Central Government. It is after this second round of advertisements that an affidavit has been filed by the Central Government wherein certain objections have been raised regarding the clauses of the scheme.2. The Central Government has raised two objections relating to paragraph 5 of Part III, which specifies passing of c...
Tag this Judgment!Biswajit Naskar Vs. Pradhan, Shirakole Gram Panchayat
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: (2008)3CALLT165(HC)
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.1. In view of very nature of stay application, we are of the view appeal and application both to be heard. All formalities of appeal stand dispensed with as all parties are appearing.2. Challenging the judgment and order dated 30th November, 2007 passed in W.P. No. 23420 (W) of 2007 by the learned trial Judge, this appeal has been preferred. By the impugned judgment under appeal the learned trial Judge dismissed the writ application, which arose out of challenge of the decision taken by the Pradhan, Shirakole Gram Panchayat on 23rd May, 2007 directing demolition of building and other structures on the concerned plots, which as per views expressed by the said Pradhan was unauthorized construction without any sanctioned plan. In the impugned decision, which was the subject matter of the writ application, Pradhan has proceeded with the matter in terms, of Section 23(6) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 as per order of the High Court dated 6th December, 2006 passed...
Tag this Judgment!Mustafa Sk. Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railway
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN273
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against judgment and order dated August 17, 2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in Application No. A/789 of 2002.2. By the order impugned in this revisional application, the learned member of the Tribunal below rejected the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition on contest without costs.3. Being aggrieved, the claimant has come up with this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.4. As to whether this revisional application is maintainable in view of the availability of the alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, I am to consider the provisions of Sections 13, 16, 17 and 23 of the said Act.5. Section 13 of the said Act speaks regarding jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal. The said Section runs as under:13. Jurisdiction, powers...
Tag this Judgment!Puspa Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Smritikana Mukherjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN111
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11th December, 1997 passed by the Assistant District Judge, 1st Court, Krishnanagar, Dist-Nadia in Title Suit No. 53 of 1990 thereby passing a preliminary decree in a suit for partition in part.2. The suit was filed by two female heirs of Class-I under the Hindu Succession Act claiming partition of lands and a dwelling house.3. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and one of the defences taken was that in view of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, the female heirs were not entitled to claim partition in respect of the dwelling house.4. The learned Trial Judge by the judgment and decree impugned herein has held that the plaintiffs have 2/9th share in respect of entire suit property including the vacant land and the dwelling house and consequently, passed a decre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »