Kolkata Court February 2008 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.
Swapan Kumar Nayak Vs. Egra Municipality and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal108
Tapen Sen, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15-3-2007 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14246 (W) of 2006 dismissing the Writ Petition.The Writ Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the appellant) filed the said Writ Petition challenging an Order dated 5-6-2006 of the Chairman, Egra Municipality, Purva Midnapore, issued under Memo No. EM 269/Removal of V.C.-1/06 whereby and whereunder and in terms of the provisions as contained in Section 21(c) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, power was sought to be exercised by the said Chairman (Respondent No. 3 herein) for the removal of the appellant from the Office of the Vice Chairman of the said Municipality with effect from 6-6-2006. The said Order reads as follows:EGRA MUNICIPALITYOFFICE OF THE COUNCILLORSP. O. EGRA DIST. PURBA MEDINIPURPIN- 721429Ref. No. E.M. 269/Removal of V.C.-1/06 Date 5-6-2006From : Tapan Kanti Kar,Chairman,Egra Municipality.To : Sri Sw...
Sandeep Mitra Alias Sandip Mitra Vs. Jharna Mitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN271
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.1. This is an appeal against Order No. 24 dated June 11, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No. 81 of 2006.2. The husband institutes a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The said application is registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 81 of 2006 and is presently pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Hooghly.3. The husband files an application under Section 26 of the said Act in the said suit seeking custody of the minor child from the respondent/wife.4. By the order impugned, the learned Additional District Judge rejects the said application filed by the husband.5. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed by the plaintiff/husband.6. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the said Act provides for appeals against orders made under Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act, if they are not i...
The K.M.C. and anr. Vs. Derby Sales Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)1CALLT437(HC),2008(2)CHN667
1. This appeal has been filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another against the Order passed by the learned single Judge dated 3rd of August 2006.2. The Writ Petitioner-Respondent No. 1 herein is the owner of the premises known as 7/1A, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019. These premises had been requisitioned in the year 1942 under the Defence of India Act, 1939. Possession was taken by the concerned authority on August 5, 1942. The requisition of the said premises was continued under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Act') and/or under the West Bengal Requisitioned Land (Continuation of Powers) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1951 Act').3. At the time of requisition one Paramananda Bose (hereinafter referred as the erstwhile owner) was the owner of the premises requisitioned. On 17th July, 1992 the erstwhile owner sold the premises to Rajarshi Dey. Thereafter, the premises were purchase...
Haldia Development Authority Vs. Prasanta Kumar Maity and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal81,2008(2)CHN112,2008(2)KLT870
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred being dissatisfied with an award dated 20th March, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Midnapore in L.A. Misc. Case No. 32 of 2000 by which the award passed by the Collector was enhanced by five times.2. The Stamp Reporter has given report that this appeal has been preferred 243 days beyond the period of limitation fixed by law.3. Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, however, has by relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Dipankar Roy v. Pranab Kumar Mani reported in 2007 (4) CHN at page 379 contended before us that his client being not a party to the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Tribunal out of which this appeal arises, the period of limitation for filing this appeal will start running after the leave is granted by this Court to his client to prefer this appeal and not from the date of award and consequently, th...
Samir Kumar Tandon and ors. Vs. the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: (2008)3CALLT174(HC)
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The six petitioners in this writ petition dated August 28, 2008 are aggrieved by orders made by the hearing officer of the corporation in the assessment proceedings initiated for determining annual values of the properties in question effective from the third quarter of 1973-74 upto the third quarter of 2003-04.2. Annual values for the period were determined by the municipal commissioner, apparently, in terms of Section 179 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. It is said that notices under Section 184 were issued and the owner of the properties contested the proceedings before the hearing officer.3. The case of the petitioners is this. Flats in the buildings constructed on the lands were purchased by them, and thereafter they submitted their respective applications seeking mutation of the assessment records of the corporation. The requisite mutation fees were paid by them on October 13, 2003. Keeping the applications pending, the corporation issued...
Anuradha Ghosh Moulick Vs. Subir Krishna Ghosh Moulick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN377
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29th March, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 72 of 1997 thereby passing a decree for divorce.2. Being dissatisfied, the wife-respondent has come up with the present first appeal.3. The husband-respondent filed a suit for divorce being Matrimonial Suit No. 72 of 1997 and the case made out by the respondent may be precised thus:(a) The parties were Hindus and were married according to Hindu rites and custom on 5th July, 1987 at 1/7, New Tollygunge, PS Regent Park, Calcutta-700 042.(b) After the marriage, the relationship between the parties was not good and the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent was very rude and rough. The appellant appeared to be very greedy and dominating in nature and she had no independent thinking about leading a family life and making the ...
Ramesh Chandra Mishra Vs. Prakash H. Mahatani and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN141
Arunabha Basu, J.1. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party.2. Supplementary affidavit filed and the same be kept on record.3. After hearing the submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party, this revisional application filed under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be disposed of with direction that all twelve cases as mentioned at page two, para 3 of the supplementary affidavit may be tried before the same Court so that the parties can participate properly in the trial in connection with all the twelve cases.4. It appears from the list submitted by the petitioner that out of twelve cases, four cases namely 1) 232/C of 2005, 2) 434/C of 2005, 3) 689/C of 2005 and 4) 1089/C of 2005 are now pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Howrah. This being the position, it is d...
Mostafa Ali @ Mostafa HossaIn Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)CHN573
Arunabha Basu, J.1. This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the Order No. 40 dated 25.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raiganj in connection with Sessions Case No. 24 of 2004 (S.T. No. 14 of 2004).2. Learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that he is a juvenile in conflict with law.3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referred to Section 7(A) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2006 and submitted that the learned Court below misdirected himself to reject the application only on the ground of alleged delay in filing the application by the petitioner. It may be pointed out in this context that whenever plea is raised by a person facing trial before the Court of Law that he is a juvenile within the meaning of the Act, then it is the duty of the Court to decide the point on merit by passin...
Bachaspati Bhattacharya and ors. Vs. Smt. Mira Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal68,2008(3)CHN763
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of one of the defendants in a suit for injunction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 6, 2001 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 1462 of 1994 thereby passing a decree for permanent injunction restraining all the defendants, their men, agents and servants from disturbing or interfering with the possession and occupation of the plaintiff in three rooms in the first floor of the premises as mentioned in schedule 'A' to the plaint as well as the kitchen on the ground floor as mentioned in schedule 'B' to the plaint. The defendants were further injuncted from creating obstruction in plaintiffs occupation and enjoyment of 'A' and 'B' schedule property of the suit premises.2. In the plaint, the plaintiff has claimed to be a co-sharer of 1/35th share in a three-storied building situated at 62, Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta and according to her, she was in excl...
Allahabad Bank Vs. Shank's (Steel Fab Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Cal96,2008(2)CHN244
1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money and is directed against order dated 21st May, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 9th Court, Alipore, in Money Suit No. 20 of 2002, thereby rejecting the plaint and at the same time, dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff for return of the plaint.2. The plaintiff, a Nationalized Bank, filed a suit for recovery of money valued above Rs. 10 lac in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, 9th Court, Alipore, notwithstanding the fact that in view of the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), such suit is barred and the proceedings are entertainable only by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.3. The defendants, after entering appearance in the suit, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »