Kolkata Court November 2010 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.
Milan Kanti Dutta Vs. Md. Aminul Iqbal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 30.09.1994 passed by learned Assistant District Judge, Additional Court, Hooghly in Title Appeal No.66 of 1990 affirming the judgment and decree of eviction dated 28.11.89 passed by learned Munsif , 2nd Court, Hooghly in Title Suit No.183 of 1986.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they being the owner of entire property (ASchedule) let out the suit property i.e. (B-Schedule) to Sri Jogendranath Dutta, the predecessor in interest of the defendants for running a shop by his son Milan Kanti Dutta (Defendant No.4) at a rental of Rs.30/- per month payable according to Bengali calendar month. It was later on enhanced to Rs.40/- per month. Defendant No.4 Milan Kanti Dutta solely runs a grocery shop in the suit shop room. The plaintiffs earlier filed an ejectment suit against the present defendant No.4, Milan Kanti Dutta being Title Suit No.17 of 1986. In that case defendant No.4 rook the plea that his father Jogendranat...
Kamala Das and ors. Vs. Basudeb Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. These two applications are directed against the order no.67 dated July 9, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Sealdah in Misc. Case No.36 of 2010 arising out of the Title Execution Case No.65 of 1998 and the order no.52 dated July 9, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Sealdah in Misc. Case no.37 of 2010 arising out of the Title Execution Case No.20 of 2006 respectively.2. Since a common question of law is involved in the two applications and both the cases are identical, these two applications are disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, I am discussing the C.O. No.2755 of 2010. The opposite party nos. 1 & 2 instituted the Title Suit No.174 of 1991 for eviction against the opposite party no.3 in respect of one room, as described in the schedule of the plaint. In that suit, the opposite party no.3 filed a written statement and he contested the said suit. Thereafter, the suit was decreed on contest. Th...
Smt. Narayani Bala Dasi and ors. Vs. Sri Durga Prasad Sen
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-30-2010
1. This Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 9th December, 2003 and 16th December, 2003 respectively passed by learned Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, 13th Court Alipore, in Title Appeal No.257 of 2002 reversing judgment and decree dated 29.06.2006 and 9th of July, 2006 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in Title Suit No.432 of 1993.2. The original plaintiff Narayani Bala Dasi filed said suit for ejectment against defendant/tenant. Defendant/tenant was in occupation of the suit shop room at a rental of Rs.60/- per month with effect from 01.10.1965 in terms of a lease deed dated 27.09.1965 for 51 years. As per terms of said lease deed lessor had the right to terminate said lease by giving one months notice in writing before expiry of the lease period. The plaintiff /owner/landlord terminated tenancy of the defendant in suit shop room by issuing a notice on the grounds of subletting il...
Nitai Saha and ors. Vs. Chhaya Saha and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order no.21 dated April 29, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandi, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No.2 of 2005 thereby rejecting an application under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the C.P.C. filed by the defendants.2. The short fact is that the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties herein, namely, Sabitri Saha, instituted the Title Suit No.83 of 1993 against the present petitioners for declaration and permanent injunction. That suit was dismissed on contest. Being aggrieved, the opposite parties preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.2 of 2005 and that appeal was allowed by the judgment and decree dated November 15, 2007 declaring the right, title and interest of the opposite parties in the suit property. The petitioners were restrained permanently from interfering with the plaintiffs portion over the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a review ...
Barun Bikash Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Arati Mallick and anr.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order no.156 dated April 17, 2008 and order no.162 dated July 10, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.99 of 2004.2. By the first order dated April 17, 2008, the learned Trial Judge has rejected an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sections 151 & 153 of the C.P.C. and by the second order dated July 10, 2008, the learned Trial Judge has rejected another petition filed by the petitioners under Section 151 read with Sections 152/153 of the C.P.c. filed for re-consideration of the order dated April 17, 2008.3. The short fact is that the petitioners instituted the Title Suit No.99 of 2004 praying for a decree of declaration that a certain passage, as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, is a common passage, a decree for declaration that the plaintiffs have right to use the said passage for ingress and egress without any intervention an...
Haider Khan Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated November 22, 2010 is seeking the following principal reliefs: b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus restraining the concerned respondents from creating any obstruction to the petitioner. 2. Counsel submits that the petitioner applying under s.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and obtaining certain order needs an order from the Writ Court permitting him to apply to the Superintendent of Police concerned for supply of police guards and directing the Superintendent of Police to supply police guards so that he may repair a dilapidated wall around the property in question. 3. Previously the petitioner moved W.P.No.19570(W) of 2009 under art.226 seeking almost identical relief, and by my decision dated July 2, 2010 I dismissed the petition saying that he was free to apply to the appropriate authority for police protection according to law. 4. I am unable to see how the petitioner could apply to the Executive Magistrate under...
Rashmi Cement Limited Vs. Trafigura Beheer B. V.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. This appeal is at the instance of a respondent in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against an order dated October 05, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship modified the earlier ad interim order of injunction passed by His Lordship dated October 01, 2010 and passed a fresh interim order directing the present appellant to export to the respondent the contracted quantity of 40,000 Metric tonnes of iron by 15th October, 2010 from any Port without prejudice to the rights and contentions with further condition that if such goods cannot be so exported within the stipulated time, the appellant should furnish security by way of bank guarantee of the value of 20% of the sale price of US Dollar 4,864,000 at the conversion rate on the date of issue of the bank guarantee in favour of and to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Original Side. In default of furnishing su...
Kibria Khondakar. Vs. Hrishikesh Banik and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. This application is directed against the order no.36 dated September 14, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Burdwan in Misc. Case No.15 of 2009 arising out of Title Appeal No.75 of 2007 arising out of Title Suit No.145 of 1990.2. The short fact is that the opposite party nos.1 & 2 instituted a suit being Title Suit No.145 of 1990 for eviction in respect of a shop room, as described in the schedule of the plaint, against the opposite party no.3 and the father of the petitioner, namely, Osman Gani (now deceased). The said Title Suit No.145 of 1990 was decreed ex parte for non-appearance of the defendants on May 8, 2007. The opposite party no.3 alone filed an appeal being Title Appeal No.75 of 2007 against the said ex parte decree omitting the name of Osman Gani. The petitioner was not initially aware of the filing of the appeal. But when he came to know about such fact, he filed an application on May 2, 2008 for addition of party in the said appeal...
Zenith Credit Limited. Vs. Dinesh Kr. Paswan and ors.
Court: Kolkata Appellate
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. This application is at the instance of the petitioner of a proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and is directed against the order no.27 dated May 27, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No.1349 of 2005 thereby allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the opposite party no.3.2. The short fact is that the petitioner filed the said proceeding for recovery of money advanced with regard to a motor vehicle. The opposite party nos.1 is the hire purchaser and the opposite party no.2 is the guarantor of the said transaction. For non-payment of the money, the petitioner filed the said title suit praying for an award of Rs.3,57,434/-, declaration that the petitioner is the owner of the said motor vehicle, recovery of possession and other reliefs. During pendency of the said proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, the applicant /opposite party no.3 herein filed an ap...
Paltu Mukherjee and Others. Vs. East Bengal Club and Others.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-2010
1. As is now the wont, elections of office-bearers of sporting clubs in the Maidan have become acrimonious affairs. Elections were due to be held for various posts in the East Bengal Club this year. The present suit was filed in or about April this year seeking the following reliefs:a) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants /the present Executive Committee of the East Bengal Club from proceeding to hold the next election of its Executive Committee without first preparing and publishing a draft photo electoral roll, making available copies of the same to all members who may apply for such copies for the due scrutiny/approval thereof and thereafter preparing a final photo electoral roll after duly considering all objections that may be raised with regard to the draft;b) A decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants/ the present Executive Committee of the East Bengal Club to forthwith to prepare and publish a draft photo electoral roll of all members of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »