Kolkata Court May 2008 Judgments

Adhir Kumar Biswas Vs. Madan Mohan Mondal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(2)CHN990

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for eviction, decreed on the ground of subletting, and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 1982 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Ejectment Suit No. 740 of 1978.2. The case made out by the plaintiff-respondent may be summed up thus:(a) The appellant was a monthly tenant in respect of one room on the first floor and one room on the second floor with common bath and privy at the premises No. 29/4, Serpentine Lane, Calcutta-14 at a monthly rental of Rs. 60/- payable according to the English calendar under the respondent.(b) The appellant had sublet the aforesaid tenanted portion to one Dhiren Biswas for more than a year without the permission of the plaintiff and the appellant had been staying with his family at 54/1A, Serpentine Lane, Calcutta-14.(c) The appellant had also changed the character of the suit property and had damaged the f...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Netai Chandra Ghosh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2010ACJ346,AIR2008Cal203,2008(4)CHN896

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. Instead of disposal of the application, we propose to hear out the appeal itself, as a pure question of law has arisen for determination in this appeal.2. This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 25th February, 1999 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, E.C. Act and Additional District Judge at Alipore, in M.A.C. Case No. 29 of 1998 thereby disposing of the claim- application by directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 54,290/- to the claimant. It was further stipulated in the Award that if the amount was not paid within two months from the date of the Award, the claimant would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum upon the said amount from the date of Award till the realisation of the full amount.3. Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal.4. There is no dispute that this is a case of partial disablement to the extent of 15 pe...

Dhunseri Tea and Industries Limited Vs. Dhunsiri Plantation Private Li ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)4CALLT24(HC),2008(3)CHN158,LC2009(1)49

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against Order No. 2 dated 19th December, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore, District - 24 Parganas (South), in Title Suit No. 2138 of 2007, thereby refusing the prayer for ad interim injunction after issuing a notice to show-cause why the prayer of the appellant for temporary injunction should not be granted.2. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present first miscellaneous appeal.3. The appellant before us filed the aforesaid suit in the Court of the learned District Judge, 24-Parganas (South), thereby praying for the following relief:(a) A decree of declaration that the plaintiff is exclusively entitled to use the said trademark 'DHUNSERI' in respect of tea and/or allied products to the exclusion of others including the defendant;(b) A decree of declaration that the trademark 'DHUNSERI' of t...

Sri Dilip (Pramanik) Das and ors. Vs. Sri Alok Barman

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN101

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This first miscellaneous appeal is at the instance of the defendants in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against the Order No. 12 dated 20th March, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 497 of 2008 thereby disposing of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by restraining the appellants from obstructing, interfering, or disturbing the peaceful progress of construction work of the proposed multi-storied building on the suit property till the disposal of the suit.2. Being dissatisfied, the defendants have come up with the present First Miscellaneous Appeal.3. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit being Title Suit No. 46 of 2008 in the Seventh Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore, which has since been transferred to the Second Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division and has been renumbered as Title Suit No. 497 of 2008.4. In the said...

Sunil Kumar Ghosh Vs. Madan Ghosh and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Judge, VIIIth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Appeal No. 11 of 2004 affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Judge, 4th Bench of Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 66 of 2000.2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant, in short, is that he purchased the suit premises by registered deed dated 23.02.1996 from Smt. Krishna Mallick. The defendant Nos. 1 & 2 were the monthly tenants under Smt. Krishna Mallick before the purchase of the suit premises by the plaintiff at a monthly rental of Rs. 140/- according to English calendar month. Smt. Krishna Mallick sent a letter attornment to all the tenants of the premises as well as to the defendants by letter dated 23.02.1996 thereby intimating the fact of sale of the suit premises to the plaintiff and requesting them to pay the monthly rent in respect of the suit premises to the plaintiff. But they did not...

Suvadip Mukherjee Vs. the State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Seeking quashing of order of framing charge under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with BGR Case No. 2472/06 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, the petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court moved the instant criminal revisional application.2. Inspite of repeated calls none appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. The affidavit of service is already on record. However, Mr. Sekhar Basu, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Rabi Shankar Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State are present in Court.3. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. Sekhar Basu, the Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is this, that the Learned Court below while framing the impugned charge has not recorded any reason, although recording of reason is one of the basic requirements for dispensation of justice. He further submit...

Samsul Haque and ors. Vs. Nadia GramIn Bank and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)3CALLT147(HC),2008(3)CHN1

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. The scale-I officers (JMG) of the respondent bank filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the promotion process in respect of promotion to Scale-II. The aforesaid promotion is governed by the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 framed under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.2. The real grievances of the writ petitioners is that the selection for promotion has been virtually made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority in violation of the specific rule prescribed for the promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the writ petitioners did not find favour with the learned Single Judge of the trial court and the writ petition was dismissed by the said learned Single Judge by the judgment and order under appeal.3. The instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the said writ petitioners assailing the judgment and order under appeal where...

Sri Arup Mazumdar Vs. Sri Dilip Kumar Roy and anr.

Court: Kolkata

S.P. Talukdar, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th March, 2006 passed by learned 13th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Appeal No. 93 of 2005 - thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 2005 passed by the learned Trial Court in Ejectment Suit No. 2723 of 2000. The backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:Respondents, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant claiming therein that the defendant was a monthly tenant at a rental of Rs. 140/- according to English Calendar Month. The property was purchased by the plaintiffs by virtue of a registered Kobala dated 16.8.1996 and the defendant accepted the plaintiffs as his landlords by payment and acceptance of rent. Plaintiffs claimed that he had sublet or transferred or parted with possession of the suit premises to Amit Mazumdar and Ashish Mazumdar without the consent of the plaintiffs and he himself shifted to ownership flat at Ut...

Dipak Choudhury and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN548

Dipankar Datta, J.1. Subject matter of these writ petitions being related, the same were heard together and would be governed by this common judgment.2. Popular Drug House Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereafter the Company), its Managing Director and two other directors are the four petitioners in that order in W.P. No. 5137 (W) of 2008. The private respondents in that writ petition (respondents 4 to 25) are the employees of the Company who according to these petitioners are unauthorisedly and illegally running the medicine shop of the Company.3. The petitioners' case is that the business of the said Company which commenced in the fifties was prospering till 2002 when the staff and employees of the Company started creating disturbances in smooth running of the medicine shop. The private respondents in the petition are guilty of misbehaviour, insubordination, indiscipline, irregularity and serious misdemeanor like siphoning of funds, etc. Illega...

Sri Arup Banerjee Vs. Smt. Anindita Banerjee

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Roy, J.1. Invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the complaint Case No. C/480 of 2007 under Sections 193/196/197/198/120B of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah as well as the order of issuance of summons.2. It may be mentioned the aforesaid complaint case was filed as against the present petitioner Sri Arup Chatterjee describing him as the accused No. 1 as well as against one Mriganka Khan describing him as the accused No. 2.3. The allegations made in the impugned complaint are as follows;(a) The complainant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the accused No. 1. The said application being filed before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah, the Misc. Case No. 120 of 2003 was registered and subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of the Lear...