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.
Rina Mukherjee and anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ1248
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. Instead of hearing the application for early disposal of the appeal, we have heard the learned advocate for the parties on the merit of the appeal itself by treating the same as on day's list as the appeal can be disposed of on a pure question of law.2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is at the instance of a claimant and is directed against the order dated 8.6.2005 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Second Court at Asansol, District Burdwan and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 22 of 2004 by which the Tribunal modified its earlier order dated 19.5.2005 by directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 9,35,348 instead of Rs. 9,17,660 ordered vide award dated 19.5.2005.3. It appears from record that initially the claim application being M.A.C. Case No. 22 of 2004 had been disposed of by directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 11,53,412. Being dissatisfied, insurance company filed an application under Order 47,...
Budhmal Bhansali @ B. Bhansali Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: III(2008)BC460,2008(2)CHN1002
Arunabha Basu, J.1. The revisional application under Sections 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is instituted challenging the order dated 5th May, 2007 passed by learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkala in Criminal Revision Case No. 162 of 2006.2. The petitioner filed the revisional application before the learned Court below, challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 27.6.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Kolkata whereby and whereunder the petitioner's prayer to discharge him in connection with Complaint Case No. C/633/1999 under Sections 138/141, Negotiable Instruments Act, was injected.3. Certified copy of the order passed by the learned Revisional Court in connection with Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2006 will show that before the learned Magistrate, petitioner herein, filed an application praying for an order of discharge on the ground that, the relation the Company, which is impleaded as accused in connection with the Co...
Smt. Anjali Kundu and ors. Vs. Shib Shankar Kundu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)3CALLT231(HC)
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.1. The fact leading to the filing of the First Miscellaneous Appeal and the Civil Revision is that the appellants/petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed the suit against the defendants/respondents/opposite parties praying for declaration, recovery of possession by eviction of licensee and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiffs, Anath Bandhu Kundu, Gopal Chandra Kundu and Dina Bandhu Kundu being the brothers were the co-sharers in respect of the suit property. As such, all of them were shown as plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was heard by the learned Trial Court and was dismissed on contest.Challenging the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 26 of 1995 before the learned District Judge, Barasat. During the pendency of the appeal, it was submitted by the appellants that one of the appellants/plaintiffs being appellant No. 3 Dina Bandhu Kundu expired on 17/7/2003 leaving behind his son, two daughters and his widow as his legal h...
Farinni Vs. Dream Food Products and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN689
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiff insists on the enforcement of the negative covenant and the defendants urge that their daily bread comes from the manufacture of cakes. The unravelling of the problem lies in the answer to the legal issue as to whether the Court is left with no discretion in the enforcement of the negative covenant.2. The plaintiff came to Court almost at the beginning of the season of good cheer and obtained an ex parte order on December 12, 2007 in terms of prayer (a) and the appointment of a special officer in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. Prayer (a) restrained the defendants from manufacturing any product for any person other than the plaintiff. Prayer (b) permitted the special officer to keep a check on the activities at the defendant's factory. On December 20, 2007, upon the defendants being heard, the Special Officer was required to make a surprise visit to the defendants' manufacturing unit without notice to any of the parties.3. The defendants submit ...
Badal Chandra Das Vs. Collector (Land Acquisition)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN741
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two first appeals are at the instance of a referring claimant and are directed against the common award dated 21st August, 1996 passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Raiganj in L.A. Miscellaneous Case No. 26 of 1994 heard along with L.A. Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 1994 thereby enhancing the award passed by the Collector to Rs. 10,74,615/- together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the excess amount which the Collector had already paid to him.2. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals may be summed up thus: Being dissatisfied with the awards of compensation passed by the Collector (Land Acquisition, Uttar Dinajpur), the petitioner made two references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to him, the market value of the acquired land was not properly assessed considering the position, location and future prospect of the land. The appellant further complained that no amount was paid for acquisition of fishery...
Biva Pyne and anr. Vs. Chunilal Pyne and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN618
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The plaintiffs in a suit relating to the management and administration of the fourth defendant company complain that the fourth defendant and/or persons in control thereof have acted in derogation of an order passed in the suit on September 18, 2006.2. According to the plaintiffs, the order of September 18, 2006 required the fourth defendant to issue a fortnight's prior intimation to the Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiffs, in the event the fourth defendant sought to alienate any property standing in its name. The plaintiffs complain that sometime last week, unknown persons came to take possession of the property at Khardah which the plaintiffs knew to be standing in the name of the defendant company. The plaintiffs allege that the plaintiffs were in position to resist possession of the Khardah property being taken up and the plaintiffs could approach Court only on February 13, 2008 as the Court was closed on the Monday and Tuesday of this week.3. On February 13,...
Prafulla Kumar Jana and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN1052
Arunabha Basu, J.1. The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 17.5.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Datan in connection with case being G.R. No. 692/2002 arising out of Belda Police Station Case No. 61/02 under Section 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Petitioneres herein are impleaded as accused, in connection with the criminal case as mentioned above.3. First Information Report was lodged before the O.C., Belda Police Station by the Opposite Party No. 2 alleging inter alia that one Kakali Jana, who is the sister of the wife of informant was given in marriage with petitioner No. 1. The said Kakali Jana was subjected to cruelty and torture by the petitioners and ultimately she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house.4. The written information lodged before the police was registered at Belda Police Station under First Information Report No. 61/02 dated 22.5.2002. Investigation was initiated by the police an...
Arati Dolai and ors. Vs. Baser Ali Bux and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-2008
Reported in: 2008ACJ1569
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants and is directed against the award dated 30.8.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by which the Tribunal dismissed the application for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle employed by the owner himself being involved in the accident and the death having been caused on his account, the jurisdiction of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was not attracted and the appropriate remedy of the claimants lay before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act.Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.2. The facts giving rise to filing of the application under Section 163-A of the Act may be summed up thus:(a) The victim, namely, one Kalipada Dolai was the driver of the vehicle being tractor No. WB 33-1200. On 19.12.1996 while the deceased was coming from the brickfield of one Amitava Sashmal near western side ...
Shib Saha and ors. Vs. Shibudas Kanshabanik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CHN923
Biswanath Somadder, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order, being order No. 126, dated 19th April, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Krishnagar, Nadia in Miscellaneous Case No. 25 of 2006.3. The petitioners before this Court are not parties to the original suit proceeding. The order impugned has been passed by the learned Court below in an execution application filed by the decree holder under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders.4. The contention of the petitioners herein is that the Executing Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that in terms of Order 21 Rule 101 all questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or ...
Accounts Officer Vs. R. Sen and Co. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)CHN935
Biswanath Somaddar, J.1. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order, being order No. 16 dated 6th September, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, VII Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1327 of 2004.3. By the order impugned, the learned Court below proceeded to reject the application of the defendant, being the petitioner herein, filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Section 7B(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.4. After considering the submissions made by the learned advocate and upon perusing the instant application and the order impugned, I find that the learned Court below has rejected the said application primarily on two grounds. Firstly, the application of the defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable in view of non-compliance of the mandatory provision...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »