Kolkata Court May 2008 Judgments

Narendra Singh Vs. Purshotamdass Bangur and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Prasenjit Mandal, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant/petitioner and is directed against the judgment and order No. 13 dated July 14, 2006 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Civil Revision Case No. 15 of 2005 (wrongly recorded as Civil Revision Case No. 25 of 2005 by the defendant/petitioner) affirming the order No. 95 dated May 11, 2005 passed by the learned Judge, Chief Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta in ejectment suit No. 2866 of 2000.2. The facts necessary for the purpose of the present revisional case in short are that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted the Ejectment Suit No. 586 of 1991 before the City Civil Court, Calcutta against the defendant/petitioner on the ground of default, sub-letting, commission of an act of nuisance and annoyance to the neighbours etc. In that suit the defendant/petitioner was contesting by filing a written statement of defence. The...

Rajmani Sharma and ors. Vs. Khitish Debnath

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN471

Kalidas Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants/appellants assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sealdah in Title Appeal No. 34 of 2001 reversing the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Third Court, Sealdah in T.S. No. 282 of 1989. The case of the Plaintiff/respondent, in short, is that the plaintiff/respondent is a thika tenant in respect of the suit property situated at premises No. 58/5A, Barrackpore Trunk Road, P.S. Cossipore. The suit was filed praying for a decree of permanent injunction. But subsequently, the plaint was amended and the prayer was made for declaration that the plaintiff is the thika tenant in respect of 'A' schedule property with a shed standing thereon and for confirmation of possession in respect of 'A' schedule property and for recovery of possession, alternatively, for a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate th...

Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs. Neena Chand

Court: Kolkata

Tapas Kumar Giri, J.1. Challenging the order dated 24.4.2006 passed by Learned Judge, IV Bench of the Small Causes Court at Calcutta in connection with Ejectment Suit No. 351 of 2003, this Revisional Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner / defendant tenant.2. Grievances of the petitioner as ventilated in the instant application may briefly be stated as follows:That the opposite party / plaintiff instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No. 414 of 1990 before the Learned Judge, 9th Bench City Civil Court at Calcutta against the petitioner/defendant tenant inter alia, praying for eviction in respect of the suit premises as described in the plaint on the ground of default since September, 1987.The petitioner duly entered appearance through his learned Advocate and filed an application under Section 17(2) (2A) (b) of the W.B.P.T. Act, 1956 and admitted as defaulter in payment of rent but disputed the tenancy with the plaintiff as the ...

Sanjit Kumar Sheet Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT461(HC),2008(3)CHN20

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. Both the appeals have been preferred at the instance of the same appellant. These appeals were heard analogously since the facts involved in the said appeals are almost identical and the issues raised therein are more or less similar.2. The appellant herein initially filed a writ application before this Court for granting an opportunity to the said appellant to appear at the interview in the post of Group 'D' staff in the Majilapur Birendra Vidyapith at Purba Midnapore, as the name of the said appellant was not sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange.3. The learned single Judge of this Honb'le Court upon hearing the submissions of the respective parties passed an interim order directing the Secretary and the Headmaster of the said school to consider the candidature of the appellant herein for the said post of Group 'D' staff along with other candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The relevant portion of the said order dated 18th August,...

Rampada Das and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2008)2CALLT522(HC),2008(2)CHN984,[2008(118)FLR904]

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioners assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge whereby and whereunder the said learned single judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein on merits.2. Going through the records we find that both the writ petitioners on being recommended by the School Service Commission were appointed as assistant teachers in the respective schools. The writ petitioners herein are also undisputedly the approved assistant teachers in Zoology in two different schools of two different districts namely, Bankura and Purba Medinipur. The appellants/writ petitioners herein approached the respondent authorities for according approval to their mutual transfer since the managing committee of both the schools expressed their willingness to accept such mutual transfer of the teachers concerned.3. Initially, the learned single judge of this Court while entertaining the ear...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Budhlani Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN661

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. This letters patent appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against the order dated April 29, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator.2. The respondent-contractor agreed to carry out a civil construction work worth Rs. 19,47,050/-. The time-limit for completion of the work was fixed as one year from the date of awarding the contract. The work was to be completed by 10th February, 1990 but it was actually completed on 13th June, 1991 and as such, there was c delay of more than 16 months in completing the work. The claimant-contractor, after completion of the work, submitted bills and there was dispute with regard to the quantum of the final bill. The final bill was not paid for a long time despite repeated requests and representations.3....

M. Emdadul Hoque Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN677

1. The judgement and order dated 9th August, 2006 of the learned Tribunal, West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy is under challeng in this application. The petitioner before the learned Tribunal basically challenged the order of cancellation of the order permitting conversion of character of land passed under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The summarised fact of the case on which the present application has arisen is as follows:The petitioner purchased plots of land measuring 1.38 acres and 7 cottahs respectively by and under two registered Deeds of Conveyance dated 30th January, 2001 and 27th June, 2003 bearing plot No. 2139/2375 situate at Mouza Dakshin Dhapamanpur, Police Station: Bhangore, Dist.: 24 Paraganas; (South). After purchasing the said lands the petitioner applied for mutation before the prescribed authority and the petitioner's name was duly and lawfully mutated and; such mutation certificate was issued by th...

Balaji Agro Infotech Enterprise Vs. Icici Bank Limited and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(3)CHN974

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.1. These two first miscellaneous appeals were heard together. By one of the appeals, being F.M.A.T. No. 317 of 2008, the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction, has challenged the Order No. 5 dated 28th January, 2008 passed by the learned Trial Judge by which the said Court refused to grant any ad interim order of injunction on an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff during the pendency of the main application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code.2. By other appeal, being F.M.A.T. No. 283 of 2008, the selfsame plaintiff has challenged the Order No. 8 dated 1st March 2008 passed by the learned Trial Judge by which the learned Trial Judge dismissed the main application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The appellant before us filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Calcutta being Title Suit No. 2868 of 2007 thereby claiming for the following relief:(a) A declaration that...

Sunrise Sports India Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and a ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN400

Partha Sakha Datta, J.1. By this application dated 13.07.2007 under Section 482 of the Cr.PC the two petitioners who are accused in Complaint Case No. 6433 of 2007 under Section 420/406 of the IPC pending before the learned Chief Metropoilitan Magistrate, Calcutta pray for quashing of the proceeding on the ground that the petition of complaint does not disclose any prima facie criminal offence.2. The OP. No. 2 had an agreement with the two petitioners for supply of sports shoes as consignment agent of the accused No. 1/petitioner No. 1 to the relevant parties as may be directed by the accused No. 1/company. At the start of the business transaction the accused No. 1 demanded Rs. 5 lac towards security deposit and the complainant-O.P. No. 2 made over three cheques, being No. 196266 for Rs. 1,50,000/-, No. 196267 for Rs. 2 lac and No. 196265 for Rs. 1,50,000/- all undated thus totaling a sum of Rs. 5 lac drawn on Canara Bank, Sikh Temple Road, Guwahati and it was understanding between the...

Central Provident Fund Commissioner and anr. Vs. Modern Transportation ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2008(4)CHN33,(2009)IIILLJ137Cal

Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This letters patent appeal has been filed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner impugning the judgment of the learned Single in W.P. No. 2982(W) of 2005 dated 07.04.2006. Since the issue raised herein is intrinsically legal, we may notice only the skeletal facts.2. The writ petitioner No. 1, a Private Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as the company) is engaged in manning the Captive Railway System of Damodar Valley Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the DVC), the proforma respondent No. 4. Its only connection with DVC is a contract to supply personnel for manning the cabins and gates on the railway road. It receives the remuneration for supplying the aforesaid personnel. It had engaged 28 persons who were retired employees of the Indian Railways on a lumpsum honorarium basis. By letter dated 18th February, 2002, the company was informed that its establishment came under the purview of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisi...